न विद्यते यस्य च जन्म कर्म वा
न नामरूपे गुणदोष एव वा ।
तथापि लोकाप्ययसम्भवाय यः
स्वमायया तान्यनुकालमृच्छति ॥
तस्मै नमः परेशाय ब्रह्मणेऽनन्तशक्तये ।
अरूपायोरुरूपाय नम आश्चर्यकर्मणे ॥
na vidyate yasya ca janma karma vā
na nāma-rūpe guṇa-doṣa eva vā |
tathāpi lokāpyaya-sambhavāya yaḥ
sva-māyayā tāny anukālam ṛcchati ||
tasmai namaḥ pareśāya brahmaṇe’nanta-śaktaye |
arūpāyoru-rūpāya nama āścarya-karmaṇe ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 8.3.8–9)
“Obeisance unto the Supreme Īśa, unto Brahman, unto he possessed of unending potency, unto he who has no birth or action, no name or form, and no faults in the form of [material] qualities whatsoever, and who by means of his own māyā still accepts these [i.e., births, actions, names, forms, and qualities] perpetually for the sake of the dissolution and the attainment of the people. Obeisance unto he who has no [material] form, unto he who has an excellent [spiritual] form, unto he of astonishing action.”
Commentary
ayam arthaḥ—avasthāntara-prāptir vikāraḥ | tatra prathama-vikāro janma iti | apūrṇasya nija-pūrty-arthā ceṣṭā karma iti | mano-grāhyasya vastuno vyavahārārthaṁ kenāpi saṅketitaḥ śabdaḥ nāma iti | cakṣuṣā grāhyo guṇaḥ rūpam iti | sattvādi-prākṛta-guṇa-nidāno dravyasyotkarṣa-hetur dharma-viśeṣo guṇa iti prakṛtije loke dṛśyate | yasya ca sarvadā svarūpa-sthatvāt pūrṇatvān manaso’py agocaratvāt svaprakāśatvāt prakṛty-atītvāt tāni na vidyante, tathāpi yas tāni ṛcchati prāpnoti ‘tasmai namaḥ’ ity uttara-ślokenānvayaḥ | …
nanu prāpnotīty ukteḥ kadācitkatvam apy avagamyate, tatrāha—anukālaṁ, nityam eva prāpnoti, kadācid api na tyajatīty arthaḥ | svarūpa-śakti-prakāśitvasya ca mitho hetu-hetumattā jñeyā | …
karmaṇo vailakṣaṇyaṁ svarūpānanda-vilāsa-mātratvam | tad yathā ‘lokavat tu līlā-kaivalyam’ iti | vyākhyātaṁ ca tattva-vādibhiḥ yathā—‘loke mattasya sukhodrekād eva nṛtyādi-līlā, na tu prayojanāpekṣayā, evam eveśvarasya’ iti | nārāyaṇa-saṁhitāyāṁ ca—‘sṛṣṭy-ādikaṁ harir naiva prayojanam apekṣya tu | kurute kevalānandād yathā mattasya nartanam || pūrṇānandasya tasyeha prayojana-matiḥ kutaḥ | muktā apy āpta-kāmāḥ syuḥ kim utāsyākhilātmanaḥ ||’ iti | na conmatta-dṛṣṭāntenāsarvajñatvaṁ prasañjayitavyam, svarūpānandodrekeṇa sva-prayojanam ananusandhāyaiva līlāyate ity etad-aṁśenaiva svīkārāt | ucchvāsa-praśvāsa-dṛṣṭānte’pi suṣupty-ādau tad-doṣāpātāt | tasmāt svarūpānanda-svābhāviky eva tal-līlā | śrutiś ca—‘devasyaiva svabhāvo’yam āpta-kāmasya kā spṛhā’ iti | atra prākṛta-sṛṣṭy-ādi-gatasya sākṣād-bhagavac-ceṣṭātmakasya vīkṣaṇādi-karmaṇo vastutas tu tathā-vidhatve vaikuṇṭhādi-gatasya kaimutyam evāpatitam | yathoktaṁ nāga-patnībhiḥ ‘avyākṛta-vihārāya’ iti | ata eva śrī-śukādīnām api tal-līlā-śravaṇe rāgataḥ pravṛttir yujyate | …
svarūpānandātiśayita-bhagavad-ānanda-vilāsa-rūpāṇy eva tānīti bhāvaḥ | prākṛta-vailakṣaṇyāt ‘akartur ajanasya’ ity uktam | ata eva veda-guhyāni api tānīti | …
tad evaṁ svarūpa-śakti-vilāsa-rūpatvena teṣāṁ prākṛtād vailakṣaṇyaṁ sādhitam | tatra āśaṅkate—nanu bhavantu sva-svarūpa-bhūtāny eva tāni, tathāpi svarupasyaiva pūrṇatvāt tat-tat-prāptau kiṁ prayojanaṁ? tatrāha—lokāpyaya-sambhavāya, loko bhakta-janaḥ, tasyāpyayaḥ saṁsāra-dhvaṁsaḥ, tat-pūrvakaḥ sambhavo bhakti-sukha-prāptiḥ | bhū prāptau, tad-artham | etad apy upalakṣaṇaṁ, nitya-pārṣadānām api bhakti-sukhotkarṣārtham | tad uktaṁ śrīmad-arjunena prathame—‘tathāyaṁ cāvatāras te bhuvo bhāra-jihīrṣayā | svānāṁ cānanya-bhāvānām anudhyānāya cāsakṛt ||’ iti | ‘tathāyaṁ cāvatāras te bhuvo bhāra-jihīrṣayā | svānāṁ cānanya-bhāvānām anudhyānāya cāsakṛt ||’ iti | asyārthaḥ—yathānye puruṣādayo’vatārāḥ, tathāyaṁ cāvatāraḥ sākṣād-bhagavataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇākhyasya tavaiva prākaṭyaṁ, parama-bhaktāyā bhuvo bhāra-jihīrṣayā jāto’pi, anyeṣāṁ svānāṁ bhaktānām asakṛc ca muhur apy anudhyānāya nija-bhajana-saukhyāya bhavati | nanu tarhi bhakta-saukhyam eva prayojanaṁ jātam iti ‘pūrṇānandasya tasyeha prayojana-matiḥ kutaḥ’ ity etat katham upapadyeta? tatrāha—ananya-bhāvānām iti | anyathā sarvajña-śiromaṇer nirdoṣasya tasya tan-mātrāpekṣakānāṁ teṣām upekṣāyām akāruṇya-doṣaḥ prayujyeta iti bhāvaḥ | ātmārāme’pi kāruṇya-guṇāvakāśo ‘guṇā viruddhā api tu samāhāryāś ca sarvataḥ’ iti smaraṇāt vicitra-guṇa-nidhāne śrī-bhagavaty eva sambhavati | tato’nyatra tu sañcarita-tad-guṇāṁśe tadīya eva yaḥ pratipadam eva sāścaryaṁ śruty-ādibhir uccair gīyate | yaś cāviriñcim āpāmara-janam ākarṣann eva vartate | tad uktaṁ svayam eva—‘bhajato’pi na vai kecid bhajanty abhajataḥ kutaḥ |ātmārāmā hy āpta-kāmā akṛta-jñā guru-druhaḥ || nāhaṁ tu sakhyo bhajato’pi jantūn bhajāmy amīṣām anuvṛtti-vṛttaye ||’ ity ādi | tasmāt parama-samarthasya tasya kṛpā-lakṣaṇaṁ bhakta-jana-sukha-prayojanakatvaṁ nāma ko’pi svarūpānanda-vilāsa-bhūta-paramāścarya-svabhāva-viśeṣa iti mūla-padye’py anukālam ṛcchati ity anenaiva darśitam | ataḥ prayojanāntara-matitvaṁ tu tasmin nāsty eva | tat-prayojanatvaṁ ca tasya parama-samarthasyānanda-vilāsa eveti dik | yathoktam—‘kṛpālor asamarthasya duḥkhāyaiva kṛpālutā | samarthasya tu tasyaiva sukhāyaiva kṛpālutā ||’ iti ||
(Excerpt from Bhagavat Sanarbha: 47)
“This is the meaning: a transformation (vikāra) is the attainment of another state. Therein, the first transformation is [called] birth. An effort, of one who is unfulfilled, the object of which is the fulfillment of oneself, is [called] karma. A word somehow established for the purpose of designation of an object perceptible to the mind is [called] a name (nāma). The quality perceptible to the eye is [called] form (rūpa). A particular characteristic that is the cause of the excellence of a substance (dravya) and the primary cause of which is the guṇas of prakṛti beginning with sattva is [called] a quality (guṇa). These [five aforementioned existents] are visible in the world manifested from prakṛti. ‘Obeisance unto he who does not have these [five existents in his essential nature] because of [his] (1) being always situated in [his] essential nature (svarūpa) [which is distinct from them], (2) being fulfilled (pūrṇa) [in and of himself], (3) being beyond the scope of even the mind [of living beings in the world of prakṛti], (4) being self-manifesting (svaprakāśatva), and (5) being beyond prakṛti, and yet who accepts (ṛcchati) these’ is the syntactic connection (anvaya) with the latter verse. …
“[An objection is raised:] ‘Well, because of the mention of “acquires” (prāpnoti) [i.e., “accepts” (ṛcchati) in the verse], temporariness [of Śrī Bhagavān’s birth, action, and so forth] is also understood [since if he is said to “accept” these things, that implies that he did not have them prior to his accepting them].’ To that, the speaker says ‘perpetually’ (anukālam): he acquires them verily eternally, meaning, he never gives them up [i.e., he has never existed without them and thus he does not actually ever literally acquire them; rather, he beginninglessly and endlessly remains in possession of them]. That which is being manifested by the svarūpa-śakti [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān’s birth, action, and so forth], furthermore, having the nature of being cause and effect to one another [respectively] is to be understood [i.e., the svarūpa-śakti is the cause of that which it manifests, meaning, Śrī Bhagavān’s birth, action, and so on, and the birth, action, and so on of Śrī Bhagavān are effects of the svarūpa-śakti; thus although both the svarūpa-śakti and its effects are beginninglessly and endlessly co-existent in Śrī Bhagavān, to convey that the effects are dependent upon their cause for their existence they are said to be ‘accepted perpetually’ by Śrī Bhagavān in the verse under discussion]. …
“The distinctiveness of the action [of Śrī Bhagavān from the worldly action of living beings in general, which was defined earlier as the effort of one who is unfulfilled to attain fulfillment for oneself] is [its] being only an expression of the bliss of [his] essential nature (svarūpa). This is [stated] as follows [in Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.33], ‘“‘Like a person’s (lokavat) [action], it [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān’s action], rather, is a singularity of play (līlā-kaivalyam) [i.e., it is constituted only of play and nothing else].’ This [sūtra] has been explained, furthermore, by the revered Tattvavādī [i.e., Madhvācārya, in his commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra], ‘The play (līlā) of dancing and so forth of an inebriated person in the world occurs only because of [the person’s feeling] an abundance of bliss, and not, rather, with reference to a motive (prayojana). Verily such is so of Īśvara [i.e., Īśvara’s actions are not performed with a motive of any kind or to attain a state of fulfillment that he lacks; they are performed, rather, simply as expressions of the bliss he feels perpetually by virtue of his intrinsic self-fulfilled essential nature of being bliss itself]. In Nārāyaṇa-saṁhitā as well [it is said in the following two verses also quoted by Madhvācārya in his commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra], ‘Without reference to a motive whatsoever, Hari performs the emanation and so forth [of the universe] out of bliss alone like an inebriated person’s dancing. Where is the notion of a motive in this regard for he who is possessed of complete bliss? Even the liberated shall be possessed of fulfilled desires. So how much more so shall this be so for he who is the Self of all?’
“And it is not that because of the example of the inebriated person [given in the aforecited verse], [any notion of] non-omniscience is occurrent [in Śrī Bhagavān since an inebriated person lacks complete awareness] because of acceptance [of the example] only with respect to this aspect [thereof], ‘He plays on account of [feeling] an abundance of bliss within his essential nature (svarūpa) verily without pursuit of a motive related to himself’ on account of an occurrence of that [i.e., non-omniscience] in deep sleep and so on even in the example of exhalation and inhalation [which is given by the Kevalādvaitavādīs, i.e., in the example given by other commentators the same objection would also apply, so it should be accepted that in neither case is the example meant to imply non-omniscience]. Therefore, his play (līlā) is verily in accord with the nature of the bliss of [his] essential nature (svarūpa). And the statement (śruti) [in the Māṇḍūkya-kārikā (1.9) of Gauḍapādācārya affirms this], ‘This [i.e., the emanation—the universe] is verily the nature (svabhāva) of Deva; what longing does one of fulfilled desire have?’
“In this regard, when the actions [of Bhagavān] of glancing [towards prakṛti] and so on, which are by nature actions of Bhagavān himself related to the material (prākṛta) emanation, are actually of such nature [i.e., when they are acts that are performed out of the bliss he is constantly absorbed in by virtue of his own essential nature, which is itself bliss, rather than acts performed in pursuit of bliss by someone lacking bliss], [then] a relation of ‘how much more’ (kaimutya) with those [acts] related to Vaikuṇṭha and so forth is certainly evident [i.e., if even Śrī Bhagavān’s acts related to the world of prakṛti are only expressions of his inherent bliss, then it is all the more the case that his acts related to his personal, eternal, spiritual, supremely blissful domain of Vaikuṇṭha and ultimately Vraja are also only expressions of his inherent bliss and not acts performed in pursuit of bliss from a state of a lack thereof], as stated by the wives of the serpent [Kālīya in SB 10.16.47], ‘Obeisance unto you of inexplicable play.’ Therefore, the endeavor (pravṛtti) out of affinity (rāga) of even Śrī Śuka and others [i.e., and other liberated beings] towards hearing that līlā is befitting. …
“The purport is that these [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān’s birth, action, and so forth] are verily of the nature of expressions of Bhagavān’s bliss which exceed [even] the bliss of his essential nature (svarūpa) [i.e., his performing action is caused by the bliss in his essential nature and indeed expands it]. Because of [their] distinctiveness from those [i.e., from birth, action, and so forth] constituted of prakṛti, [Śrī Bhagavān’s being] a ‘non-doer’ and ‘unborn’ is stated [in SB 1.3.35]. Therefore, they [i.e,, his birth, action, and so forth] are also [said to be] confidential to the Vedas (Veda-guhyāni) [in SB 1.3.35]. …
“Thus, in this way, their [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān’s birth, action, and so forth’s] distinctiveness from those [i.e., birth, action, and so forth] constituted of prakṛti is established because of [their] being of the nature of expressions of [his] svarūpa-śakti. In this regard, one may doubt, ‘Well, let those be manifested solely by his own essential nature (svarūpa). Still, because of [his] essential nature (svarūpa) specifically of being fulfilled (pūrṇa) [i.e., complete in nature], what motive is there [on his part] for [his] accepting them?’ [This is to say, even if we accept that Śrī Bhagavān’s birth, action, and so forth are constituted of his svarūpa-śakti, that still doesn’t explain why he actually engages in this things.] To this, the speaker [in SB 8.3.8] says, ‘For the sake of the dissolution and attainment of the people’ (lokāpyaya-sambhavāya). ‘The people’ (lokaḥ) refers to persons who are bhaktas [of Śrī Bhagavān], ‘dissolution’ (apyaya) refers to the termination of their saṁsāra [i.e., their transmigration throughout the realm of prakṛti], and ‘attainment’ (sambhava) refers to [their] attainment of the joy of bhakti preceding that [i.e., preceding the termination of their saṁsāra]. [The verbal root] Bhū [in the word sambhava] is in the sense of attainment; for the sake of that [i.e., ‘for the sake of the people attaining the joy of bhakti’ is the meaning of the world sambhavāya]. Even this is [only] an indicator (upalakṣaṇa) of [Śrī Bhagavān’s birth, action, and so forth being] for the sake of the expansion of the joy of bhakti also for [his] eternal associates. This is stated in the First Canto [i.e., SB 1.7.25] by Śrīmad Arjuna, ‘Thus, this avatāra of yours is because of [your] desire to remove the burden of the earth and for the sake of the repeated meditation of those who are your own and of one-pointed bhāva.’ The meaning of this [verse is as follows]: as there are other avatāras, such as the Puruṣas, so this avatāra too—a manifestation of you specifically, who are known as Śrī Kṛṣṇa and who are Bhagavān himself—although manifest because of [your] desire to remove the burden of the earth, who is a great bhakta [of yours], occurs for the sake of the repeated (asakṛt) meditation (anudhyāna) of others who are your own, that is, bhaktas, meaning, [it occurs] for the sake of the joy of the worship of yourself [that can be had by them as a result of your descending, taking birth, performing actions, and so on whereby you manifest wonderful līlās that your bhaktas can meditate on and thus experience bliss].
“[A doubt is raised:] ‘Well, then a motive (prayojana) verily of [producing] the joy of bhaktas is evident [on the part of Śrī Bhagavān in regard to his actions of emanating the universe, descending into it, and so forth]. Therefore, how can this [statement mentioned earlier from Nārāyaṇa-saṁhitā] be made, ‘Where is the notion of a motive in this regard for he who is possessed of complete bliss?’ To this, Arjuna says [in SB 1.7.25], ‘Of those who are of one-pointed bhāva’ (ananya-bhāvānām). The fault of a lack of compassion would occur on the part of he who is faultless and the crest-jewel of the omniscient [i.e., Bhagavān] otherwise in the event of neglect them, they who have regard only for him [i.e., his bhaktas, meaning, if Śrī Bhagavān did not descend as Arjuna says he does in SB 1.7.25 for the sake of giving joy to his bhaktas who filled with one-pointed bhakti to him, then Bhagavān would have the fault of lacking compassion for those who have given themselves over to him and are dependent upon him]. This is the purport. Even though he is an ātmārāma [i.e., one whose satisfaction is within himself], scope for the quality of compassion is possible only in Śrī Bhagavān, who is a reservoir of variegated qualities, as per the statement in the Smṛti-śāstra [i.e., Kūrma Purāṇa], ‘Even contradictory qualities are always to be attributed in full [to him].‘ Thus, when there is a portion of that quality [of compassion] transmitted elsewhere [i.e., when compassion appears to some extent in another person], it is [the compassion] of he alone who is praised highly by the Śrutis and so forth with amazement with verily every word [they speak] and who exists verily attracting all people—from Brahmā to the wretched [i.e., compassion exists in the absolute sense in Śrī Bhagavān alone, and whenever compassion is seen in any one else, what is actually seen is a small portion of Bhagavān’s own quality of compassion that has been transmitted into that other person]. This is verily stated by he himself [i.e., Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa, in SB 10.32.19–20], ‘Some do not honor even those who honor [them], much less those who do not honor [them, and these persons who honor no one are of four types]: (1) those whose satisfaction is in the self (ātmārāmas), (2) those of fulfilled desire, (3) the ungrateful, and (4) those who are hostile towards [their] elders. I, however, O friends, do not honor even persons who honor [me] for the sake of their engagement in continuous meditation [upon me].’ Therefore, the motivation of [giving] joy to bhaktas [by means of performing līlās whereby bhaktas’ perpetual meditation upon him is greatly nourished and produces great joy in them] the characteristic of which is the grace [upon bhaktas] of he who is supremely capable [i.e., Bhagavān] is indeed a particular supremely wonderful disposition [of his] that is a manifest expression of the bliss of his essential nature (svarūpa) [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān’s compassionately favoring his bhaktas by acting so as to give his bhaktas the experience of the joy of bhakti is not an act on his part from a state of want in pursuit of fulfillment but rather also an expression of the bliss arising from Śrī Bhagavān’s own eternal, complete essential nature (svarūpa) constituted of bliss itself]. This is shown even in the original verse [under discussion, i.e., SB 8.3.8] by [the phrase], ‘[He] Accepts [these, i.e., birth, action, and so forth] perpetually’ (anukālam ṛcchati). Thus, the notion of another motive [for his acts of emanating the universe and so on] is certainly non-existent in him. That [i.e., showing compassion to bhaktas so that they experience the joy of bhakti to himself] being a motive [on his part], furthermore, is only an expression of the bliss of he [i.e., Bhagavān] who is supremely capable [and thus it is not fit to be considered a motive in the conventional sense]. This is the direction, as it is said, ‘The compassionateness of an incapable compassionate person leads only to suffering, whereas the compassionateness of a capable one leads only to happiness.’”