मर्त्यो यदा त्यक्तसमस्तकर्मा
निवेदितात्मा विचिकीर्षितो मे ।
तदामृतत्त्वं प्रतिपद्यमानो
मयात्मभूयाय च कल्पते वै ॥
martyo yadā tyakta-samasta-karmā
niveditātmā vicikīrṣito me |
tadāmṛtatvaṁ pratipadyamāno
mayātma-bhūyāya ca kalpate vai ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.29.34; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 8.421; Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.194; Bhakti Sandarbha: 309; Prīti Sandarbha: 13; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.103; Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 5.12.11)
“When a mortal becomes one who has relinquished all karmas and offered the self to me, then he becomes distinctly desirous to act, attains immortality, and verily becomes fit for becoming of selfsame nature with me.”
Commentary
kuta ity ata āha—martya iti | yadā tyakta-samasta-karmā san me niveditātmā bhavati, tadāsau me vicikīrṣito viśiṣṭaḥ kartum iṣṭo bhavati, tataś cāmṛtatvaṁ mokṣatvaṁ pratipadyamāno mayātma-bhūyāya mad-aikyāya mat-samānaiśvaryāyeti yāvat, kalpate yogyo bhavati | vai dhruvam |
(Bhāvārtha-dīpikā)
“[The question arises:] ’How [do you bestow all the puruṣārthas upon your bhaktas as you have said you do in the previous verse]?’ Thus, he [i.e., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] says martyo … [i.e., he speaks this verse]. When a mortal becomes one who has relinquished all karmas and one who has offered the self to me, then because of me he becomes distinctly desirous to act (vicikīrṣtaḥ), that is, [possessed] of distinct desire to act. Furthermore, thereafter, he attains immortality (amṛtatvam), that is, liberatedness (mokṣatvam), and becomes fit (kalpate) for becoming of selfsame nature with me, that is, for oneness with me, meaning, specifically, [fit] for [attainment of] capability (aiśvarya) equal to mine. Vai means verily.”
martyo yadā tyakta-samasta-karmā san niveditātmā bhavati, tadāsau me vicikīrṣitaḥ prema-bhakty-ādi-pradānena viśiṣṭaḥ kartum iṣṭo bhavati | tathā ca amṛtatvaṁ saṁsāra-dhvaṁsena maraṇātītatvaṁ paramānanda-rasaṁ vā, yad vā mamādharāmṛtatvaṁ gopyatvena spaṣṭaṁ tad-anuktiḥ, avirata-pānena tatra saṁlagnatvād abheda-vivakṣāyāṁ tva-pratyayaḥ, pratipadyamānaḥ prāpnuvan, mayā saha ātma-bhūyāya atyanta-saṁyogāya kalpate yogyaḥ samartho vā bhavati | vai dhruvam |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 8.421)
“When a mortal becomes one who has relinquished all karmas and one who has offered the self to me, then because of me he becomes distinctly desirous to act (vicikīrṣtaḥ), that is, he because of [my] bestowing prema-bhakti and so forth [upon him] he becomes of distinct desire to act [i.e., his desire to act takes on a different nature and form of expression]. Then, furthermore, he attains (pratipadyamānaḥ) immortality (amṛtatvam), meaning, being beyond death as a result of the cessation of saṁsāra, or, [meaning, he experiences] the taste (rasa) of the highest bliss. Alternately, [he attains] the state of being [immersed in] the nectar (amṛta) of my lips. There is a clear non-mention of this [i.e., of this final meaning] because of [its] being confidential, and the tva affix [on the word amṛta used to form the word amṛtatvam, loosely, ‘nectarship’] is [stated] with the intent of [describing one’s having entered a state of] non-distinction [from this nectar of my lips] because of [one’s] being fully absorbed in [alt., closely attached to] that [i.e., having it stuck on one’s own lips] as a result of incessant drinking [of it]. [Additionally,] he becomes fit or capable (kalpate) for becoming of selfsame nature with me, that is, for absolute union (saṁyoga) [with me]. Vai means verily.”
martya iti | yato niveditātmā atas tyaktaṁ samastaihikāmuṣmikaṁ karma ātmātmīya-poṣaṇādi-rūpaṁ yena saḥ | tarhi me mayā viśiṣṭaḥ kartum iṣṭo bhavati | amṛtatvam iti mṛtyu-paramparām atikrāmann ity arthaḥ | mayā saha mat-sāmyena ātma-bhūyāya kalpate svarūpāvasthitiṁ mat-sārṣṭi-lakṣaṇāṁ muktiṁ prāpnotīty arthaḥ |
(Durgama-saṅgamanī-ṭīkā and Bhakti-sāra-pradarśanī-ṭīkā on Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.194)
“Regarding [the verse] martyo …, since he has become one who has offered the self [to me], he is thus one by whom all karmas related to this world and the next world in the form of nourishing the self and relatives, and so forth, have been relinquished. Then, because of me he becomes of distinct desire to act. ‘Immortality’ (amṛtatvam) means overcoming the succession of deaths [that the jīva is subject to in saṁsāra]. He becomes fit (kalpate) for becoming of selfsame nature with me, that is, [becoming of selfsame nature] with likeness to me, meaning, he attains fixity in natural form (svarūpa) [i.e., in the form of Bhagavān], that is, mukti in the form of [attainment of] my sārṣṭi [i.e., attainment of capability (aiśvarya) possessed by Bhagavān].”
āstāṁ tava vārtā, martya-mātrāyāpi sarvato vilakṣaṇāṁ gatiṁ dadāmīty āha—martya iti |
(Krama-sandarbha-ṭīkā)
“[And] Let alone your occupation [as a means of attaining desired objects, as spoken of in the previous verse], I bestow the most extraordinary position of all even upon a mere mortal [i.e., upon any living being at all regardless of whether or not they have any occupation, wealth, or other forms of worldly standing]. Thus, he says martyo … [i.e., he speaks this verse].”
tad etad ātma-nivedanaṁ bhāvaṁ vinā bhāva-vaiśiṣṭyena ca dṛśyate | pūrvaṁ yathā ‘martyo yadā’ ity-ādi | uttaraṁ yathaikādaśa eva ‘dāsyenātma-nivedanam’ iti | yathā ca rukmiṇī-vākye ‘ātmārpitaś ca bhavataḥ’ iti ||
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 309)
“Then, this offering of the self (ātma-nivedana) [i.e., the practice of offfering the self (ātma-nivedana) in general] is observable (1) without a [specific] bhāva and (2) with a specificity of bhāva. The former [i.e., offering of the self without any specific bhāva] is as [described] in martyo yadā … [i.e., SB 11.29.34]. The latter [i.e., offering of the self with a specific bhāva] is as in dāsyenātma-nivedanam … [i.e., SB 11.11.35, ‘Offering of the self on account of servanthood,’ that is, offering of the self with dāsya-bhāva] and as is in the statement of Rukmiṇī [in SB 10.52.1, wherein offering of the self with madhura-bhāva is described], ‘[Therefore, definitively, you have been chosen by me as my husband, O Dear One,] And my self has been offered to you; [so,] please accept me here as your wife.’”
tathā sārṣṭiś ca darśitā bhakti-sandarbhe | ‘martyo yadā tyakta-samasta-karmā’ ity ādau ‘mayātma-bhūyāya ca kalpate vai’ ity anena |
(Excerpt from Prīti Sandarbha: 13)
“Similarly, sārṣṭi [-mukti] too was seen in Bhakti Sandarbha (309) by means of the [the statement] ‘he verily becomes fit for becoming of selfsame nature with me’ (mayātma-bhūyāya ca kalpate vai) in the verse martyo yadā tyakta-samasta-karmā … [i.e., SB 11.29.34].”
nanu mayā sarva-matāny avagatāni, kintu tvad-bhaktānāṁ kiṁ matam? tat tvaṁ brūhīty apekṣāyāṁ ‘bhoḥ praṇayinn uddhava! caturviṁśe’dhyāye sat-kārya-vādināṁ matam, aṣṭāviṁśe tathaivāsatkārya-vādināṁ ca matam uktam | mad-bhaktās tv avivādinaḥ satya-vādinaḥ santo vastutas tu tad-ubhaya-mata-madhyavartino naiva bhavantīy āha—martya iti | manuṣyo yadā yādṛcchika-mad-bhakta-kṛpā-prasādāt tyaktāni samastāni nitya-naimittika-kāmyāni karmāṇi yena saḥ, niveditātmā mat-svarūpa-bhūtāya man-mantropadeśakāya gurave, ‘yo’haṁ mamāsti yat kiṁcid iha loke paratra ca | tat sarvaṁ bhavato nātha caraṇeṣu samarpitam ||’ iti vacasā manasā ca samarpitāhantāspada-mamatāspado bhavati, tadā tat-kṣaṇam ārabhyaiva sa martyo me mayā vicikīrṣitaḥ viśiṣṭaḥ kartum iṣṭaḥ, mat-pratipadyamānena mad-bhakty-ābhāsena yogi-jñāni-prabhṛtibhyo’pi vilakṣaṇa eva kartum īpsitaḥ syād iti | tena mad-bhakto na māyā-kāryaḥ satya-bhūta eva, nāpy avidyā-kāryo mithyā-bhūta eva, kintu mat-kāryo guṇātīta eva san, amṛtatvaṁ mṛtaṁ nāśas tad-abhāvavattvaṁ pratipadyamānaḥ mayā sahaiva ātma-bhūyāya sva-bhūtyai kalpate yogyo bhavati | ca-kāreṇaitat phalam ananusaṁhitaṁ phalaṁ tu premavat pārṣadatvam iti |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“[A question is raised:] ‘Well, all these views [i.e., philosophical viewpoints] are understood by me, but what is the view of your bhaktas? May you please state that.’ In expectation of this [query], [Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa says], ‘O beloved Uddhava! In the Twenty-fourth chapter the view of the sat-kārya-vādīs [i.e., those who say that effects are real and existent in their causes] is stated, and in the Twenty-eighth [chapter] the view of the asat-kārya-vādīs [i.e., those who say the opposite, is stated]. My bhaktas, however, are non-disputatious truth-speaking sādhus, and in reality, are not mediators [alt., interveners] between either of these views. Thus, he says martyo … [i.e., he speaks SB 11.29.34]. When a human being, that is, one (1) by who all compulsory [alt., regular] (nitya), incidental (naimittika), and elective [alt., desirous] (kāmya) activities have been relinquished by virtue of the clarity produced by the independent grace of my bhakta, and (2) whose self is offered unto the guru, the teacher of my mantra who is a manifest form of myself, that is, by whom the object of I-ness and objects of my-ness have been offered in full by mind and by speech [in the manner described in this verse from Padma Purāṇa], ‘That which is [called] “I” and whatever is [considered by me to be] mine here in this world and the next—all of that has been offered in full unto your venerable feet, O master’—then starting right from that moment, that mortal shall because of me become of distinct desire to act, that is, because of a semblance of bhakti to me given by me, [he shall become] of desire to act distinctive even from yogīs, jñānīs, and others. Thereby, my bhakta, being not merely an apparently real existent effect of māyā, and also not merely a falsely existent effect of ignorance (avidyā), but verily an effect of me beyond the guṇas, attains ‘immortality’ (amṛtatvam), that is, [the state of] being possessed of the absence of death (mṛta), meaning, destruction, and becomes fit (kalpate) for becoming of selfsame nature with me specifically, that is, for [attaining] my own fortune [i.e., for attaining wealth, capability, and so forth like mine]. On account of the word ’and’ (ca), this result is an unsought result unlike being an associate [of mine] possessed prema [i.e., becoming an associate of me possessed of prema is the primary aim and attainment of my bhakta].”
nanu dehendriyādi-vyāpāraḥ śrī-kṛṣṇasyaika-niṣṭho bhaktir iti bhaktir lakṣitā | tasyāś ca ‘lakṣaṇaṁ bhakti-yogasya nirguṇasya hy udāhṛtam’ iti bhagavad-ukter nirguṇatvam avasīyate | tac ca pariṇāma-vāde kāryasya sattvāt, prākṛta-dehendriyādīnām eva bhakti-saṁsargeṇāprākṛtatvaṁ sparśa-maṇi-nyāyenaiva sādhu buddhyāmahe | vivarta-vāde tu kārya-mātrasyaivāsattvāt dehendriyādīnāṁ mithyā-bhūtatvād bhakteḥ sthitir eva nāsti kutas tasyā nirguṇatvaṁ ghaṭatāṁ, tathā hi nirguṇāṁ bhaktim ayam upadeṣṭavya iti gurūpadeśa-kāle upadeṣṭavya-janasya mithyā-bhūtatvād ākāśa-kṣetre bīja-vapanam iva gurūpadeśa eva tāvan na bhavet | kutaḥ kṛṣṇa-bhaktiḥ, kutastarāṁ tad-abhyāsena premodayaḥ, kutastamāṁ tena bhagavad-vaśīkāra iti; satyaṁ mahācintya-śaktau bhagavati kāpy asambhāvanā na bhāvanīyā | yad uktaṁ svayaṁ bhagavataiva—‘eṣā buddhimatāṁ buddhir manīṣā ca manīṣiṇām | yat satyam anṛteneha martyenāpnoti māmṛtam ||’ iti | asyārthaḥ—yat yata anṛtena mithyā-bhūtenāpi martyena martya-śarīreṇa mām ṛtaṁ satyaṁ parama-satyam eti prāpnoti | yad vā, mā mām amṛtaṁ paramānanda-svarūpaṁ satyam anṛtenāpi martyena maraṇa-dharmavatā dehendriya-prāṇādinā patra-puṣpa-gandha-dīpa-vividha-naivedya-chatra-cāmarādy-upacāreṇa ca yad āpnoti, eṣaiva buddhimatāṁ buddhir eṣaiva manīṣiṇāṁ parama-parāmarśavatāṁ manīṣā vicāra iti | prāpti-prakāraś ca svayaṁ bhagavataivokto yathā—‘martyo yadā tyakta-samasta-karmā niveditātmā vicikīrṣito me | tadāmṛtatvaṁ pratipadyamāno mayātma-bhūyāya ca kalpate vai ||’ asyārthaḥ—yadā martyas tyakta-samasta-karmā gurūpadeśa-kāle tyakta-samasta-varṇāśrama-dharma-kāmano mayi śrī-guru-rūpe niveditau ātmānau ahantāspada-mamatāspade yena saḥ ‘yo’haṁ mamāsti yat kiṁcid iha-loke paratra ca, tat sarvaṁ bhavato nātha caraṇeṣu samarpitam’ iti vyavasāyavān bhavati, tadā sa jano mithyā-bhūto’pi me mayā vicikīṣitaḥ syāt viśiṣṭaḥ kartum iṣṭaḥ syāt, ‘nirguṇo mad-apāśrayaḥ’ iti mad-bhakter nistraiguṇya eva syād ity arthaḥ | sa hi māyā-kāryatvān na naśvaro satyaḥ, nāpy ajñāna-kāryatvān mithyā-bhūtaḥ, kintu svarūpa-bhūto mat-kāryatvān nirguṇa eva syāt | kiṁ ca mayā viśiṣṭaḥ kṛtaḥ syād ity aprayujya vicikīrṣita iti san-pratyaya-prayogān nirguṇaḥ kartum ārabhyamāna eva sa śanaiḥ śanair bhakty-ābhyāsavān niṣṭhā-rucy-āsakti-rati-bhūmikārūḍha eva samyaṅ-nirguṇaḥ syāt, tato mithyā-bhūta-vastubhiḥ saha tasya vyavahāro na syāt, tat-pūrvaṁ tu yathā-yogaṁ vyavahāras taiś ca saha labhyate | ayam arthaḥ—acintya-śaktyā bhakty-upadeśa-kāla eva tasya guṇātītāni dehendriya-manāṁsi mayā bhakti-māhātmya-darśanārtham alakṣitam eva sṛjyante, mithyā-bhūtāni tāny atyalakṣitam eva layaṁ yānti | yathā, ‘naivaṁ-vidhaḥ puruṣakāra urukramasya puṁsāṁ tad-aṅghri-rajasā jita-ṣaḍ-guṇānām | citraṁ vidūra-vigataḥ sakṛd ādadīta yan nāma-dheyam adhunā sa jahāti tanvam ||’ iti | asyārthaḥ—evaṁ-vidhaḥ priya-vrata-kartṛkaḥ sapta-samudra-nirmāṇa-prapañca iva puruṣakāro na citram, citraṁ khalv etad eva yad vidūra-vigato’ntyajo’pi yasyorukramasya nāma-dheyaṁ sakṛd apy ādadīta, adhunā tat-kṣaṇa eva tanvaṁ tanuṁ vijahātīti, tadānīṁ tanor dṛśyamānatve’pi prārabdha-karma-saṁvalita-tanu-tyāgo alakṣita evety arthaḥ | tataś ca, tadā amṛtatvaṁ maraṇa-dharmābhāvaṁ pratipadyamānaḥ tadānīm eva prāpnuvan, mayā saha ātma-bhūyāya ātma-bhāvāya ātmanaḥ svasya sthityai kalpate | yatrāhaṁ tiṣṭhāmi, tatraiva so’pi mat-sevārthaṁ tiṣṭhatīty arthaḥ | evaṁ ca jagaty asmin yāni yāni vastūni mithyā-bhūtāny upalabhyante, teṣām eva bhakti-samparkān mithyā-bhūtatvaṁ pravilāpya, bhagavatā sva-bhaktecchānukūlena parama-satyatvam eva tat-kṣaṇa eva sṛjyate | kim aśakyam acintya-śakter bhagavata iti | ata eva ‘mat sevāyāṁ tu nirguṇā’ iti, ‘man-niketaṁ tu nirguṇam’ ity-ādikāni bhagavad-vākyāni saṅgacchante | ‘acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet | prakṛtibhyaḥ paraṁ yat tu tad acintyasya lakṣaṇam ||’ ity udyama-parva-vacanaṁ bhāṣya-kāreṇāpi dhṛtam | tatra bhāvā iti bahu-vacanenādvaita-bhaṅgo na dhyeyaḥ, tesām aikyād iti sarvam avadātam |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 5.12.11)
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, activity of the body, senses, and so forth fixed solely upon Śrī Kṛṣṇa is bhakti; bhakti has been defined in this way. As per the statement of Bhagavān [in SB 3.29.11], ‘[Bhakti which is an uninterrupted, causeless is] Said to be the characteristic of nirguṇa-bhakti-yoga,’ its [i.e., bhakti’s] also being nirguṇa is concluded. Thus, furthermore, in pariṇāma-vāda [i.e., the theory of transformation], because of the real existence of effects [i.e., because in pariṇāma-vāda effects are considered to be real existents since they exist within the real existents that are their causes], we can understand well by means of the example of a touchstone the supramundanity (aprākṛtatva) by virtue of contact with bhakti of the [otherwise] mundane (prākṛta) body, senses, and so forth [i.e., when the mundane body, senses, and so forth come in touch with bhakti, which is supramundane (aprākṛta), they too become supramundane given that bhakti, like a touchstone, has the power to transform the nature of objects it contacts]. In vivarta-vāda [i.e., the theory of illusory appearance], however, because of the body, senses, and so forth being [only] falsely existent on account of the non-real existence of any effect, bhakti has no standing [i.e., real continued existence] at all, so how is its being nirguṇa [even] be possible? Moreover, since this nirguṇa bhakti has to be taught, because of the person to be taught’s being falsely existent at the time of the guru’s teaching, the very teaching of the guru, like [the notion of] sowing a seed in the field of the sky, cannot actually [even really] exist, still less could Kṛṣṇa-bhakti [itself], still further less could a manifestation of prema by means of practicing it, and still less of all could captivation of Bhagavān by means of it.’
“[In response to this objection, it should be said:] True [i.e., bhakti cannot be considered a real existent from a viewpoint based solely on vivarta-vāda]. [However,] No sort of impossibility is to be considered in regard to Bhagavān, who is possessed of tremendous inconceivable potency (mahācintya-śakti) [i.e., one should not consider Bhagavān, or bhakti, which is constituted of his inconceivable svarūpa-śakti to be unreal forms of mere illusory appearance (vivarta)], since it is stated by Bhagavān himself [in SB 11.29.22], ‘This is the intelligence of the intelligent, and the cleverness of the clever: here with that which is unreal and mortal [i.e., the material body], one attains me, who am real and immortal.’ The meaning of this [verse is as follows]: Since (yat) one attains me (mām), the Real (Ṛtam) Existent (Satyam), that is, [I am who am] the Supreme Existent, by means of the unreal (anṛtena) and mortal (martyena) body, that is, by means of even the falsely existent mortal [body], or, alternately, since one attains me (mām), the Nectar (Amṛtam) Existent (Satyam), meaning, [the Supreme Existent] of the nature of supreme bliss, by means even of a body, senses, prāṇas, and so forth, and articles such as leaves, flowers, fragrances, incense, various food offerings, umbrellas, and cāmaras, all of which are unreal and mortal, that is, possessed of the nature of dying [i.e., passing away], this alone is the intelligence of the intelligent, and the cleverness of the clever, that is, the determination of those possessed of the finest judgement. The method of attainment [alluded to in the aforementioned verse] too has been stated specifically by Bhagavān himself as follows [in SB 11.29.34], ‘When a mortal becomes one has relinquished all karmas and offered the self to me, then he becomes distinctly desirous to act, attains immortality, and verily becomes fit for becoming of selfsame nature with me.’ The meaning of this [is as follows]: When a mortal becomes (1) one by who all karmas have been given up, that is, one by who all desire for varṇāśrama-dharma has been given up at the time of [receiving] teaching from the guru, and (2) one by who the self—the object of I-ness and objects of my-ness—has been offered to me in the form of śrī guru such that one becomes possessed of the determination [as described in Padma Purāṇa], ‘That which is [called] “I” and whatever is [considered by me to be] mine here in this world and the next—all of that has been offered in full unto your venerable feet, O master,’ then that person, although falsely existent, shall because of me become distinctly desirous to act (vicikīrṣtaḥ), that is, [possessed] of distinct desire to act, meaning, [that person] shall become free from the three guṇas on account of bhakti to me as per [the statement in SB 11.25.26], ‘Refuge in me is nirguṇa.’ He certainly is not transitory because of being an effect of māyā; he is real. And he is also not falsely existent because of being an effect of ignorance (ajñāna). Rather, he is inherently existent [because he as an entity constituted of the taṭastha-śakti now under the influence of my svarūpa-śakti is not merely a product of the māyā-śakti or her principal effect, viz., ignorance]. Because of being an effect of me, he can only be nirguṇa. Moreover, on account of the usage of the san affix [i.e., a desiderative conjugation] in [the word] vicikīrṣitaḥ [meaning, ‘of distinct desire to act’] and the non-employing [of a conjugation that implies], he shall become because of me ‘[possessed] of distinct action,’ he, [being thus] nirguṇa [to some extent] indeed [even] while beginning to act [on the path of bhakti], shall gradually gradually as a practitioner of bhakti having ascended to the stages of niṣṭhā, ruci, āsakti, and rati, become completely nirguṇa. Then, his relation (vyavahāra) with falsely existent objects shall not occur, but prior to that, his relation with them as appropriate is observable. The meaning is this: right at the time of [his receiving] instruction in bhakti, by my inconceivable śakti a body, senses, and a mind that are beyond the guṇas are manifested for him by me invisibly [i.e., I grant him a body, senses, and mind that appear identical to his previous body, senses, and mind] for the purpose of showing the greatness of bhakti. The unreal forms of these [i.e., the bhakta’s previous body, senses, and mind] become dissolved completely invisibly [i.e., without any difference between the new and old body, senses, and mind being observable by anyone], as [it is said] in [SB 5.1.35], ‘This type of might [as was shown by Mahārāja Priyavrata] is not surprising for persons who have conquered the six senses by virtue of the dust of the feet of Urukrama since [even] one who has come from afar [i.e., even someone of the lowest caste] immediately gives up the body [just] after having pronounced his name [only] once.’ The meaning is this: this type of might like [that of] creating the seven oceans as performed by Priyavrata is not surprising. Indeed surprising is this: even one who has come from afar, that is, someone of the lowest caste, who has even once pronounced the name of Urukrama, immediately, that is, right at that moment, gives up the body, meaning, then even though his body remains visible, abandonment of the body [he had] possessed of prārabdha-karma occurs entirely invisibly [i.e., by means of Bhagavān’s inconceivable śakti his material body ceases to exist imperceptibly and he dons and appears in a nirguṇa body granted to him by Bhagavān]. Furthermore, he then attains ‘immortality’ (amṛtatvam), that is, the absence of the attribute of death, and becomes fit (kalpate) for becoming of selfsame nature with me, that is, for [attaining] my own state (bhāva)— the standing of myself—meaning, where I dwell, there specifically he too [then] dwells for the sake my service. In this way, furthermore, objects in this world that are considered falsely existent—as a result of their contact with bhakti, their state of being falsely existent is removed and immediately their state of being absolutely real is manifested by Bhagavān in accord with the wish of his bhakta [who is employing those objects, such as foods, flowers, and his own body, in the service of Bhagavān]. What cannot be accomplished by Bhagavān by means of his inconceivable śakti? Therefore, the statements of Bhagavān such as, ‘[Śraddhā] In service to me, however, is nirguṇa’ [in SB 11.25.27] and, ‘An abode of myself, however, is nirguṇa’ [in SB 11.25.25] are rightly stated. The statement in the Udyama-parva [of Mahābhārata], ‘Do not assess inconceivable states of being (bhāvas) with argumentation; that which is beyond the [material] elements is the characteristic of the inconceivable,’ is cited by the commentator [i.e., Śrīpād Śaṅkarācārya] as well. Therein, a contradiction of non-duality (advaita) because of the plural [form of the word] ‘bhāvas’ (bhāvāḥ) is not to be imagined because of their [i.e., these bhāvas’] oneness. Thus, everything is clear.”