Salutation to the illustrious Lord Varada Raja. The Lord’s greatness is declared chiefly in the six subsequent chapters; ‘I am supreme’ is spoken by Me as foremost. ‘Attached-minded’ denotes one exceedingly affectionate; ‘relying on Me’ means everything is done by the Lord; ‘He alone is my refuge, therefore I am not established elsewhere’—‘established’ here qualifies the action: undoubtedly entirely established.

This realm of Mine is jnana. Vijnana is special knowledge.

‘This knowledge is difficult to obtain’—it is rare among men.

‘The knowledge that has been spoken’—he says it has an inner element of great egoism.

The lower is ‘anuttama’ (not supreme). Regarding what is to be declared: the glorious Shakti, having become jiva, the bearer of prana, of the form of consciousness, ever existent—this great principle (mahattattva) is described in the Shruti (Brihadaranyaka). From the Lord two natures arose: insentient and sentient. The insentient called avyakta is divided eightfold through creation. There are great intelligence, mind, and the five elements. The lower is insentient; the higher Shakti is held to be supreme. She is of the form of consciousness, infinite, beginningless, supreme. That which is entirely dear does not belong to anyone other than the great Vishnu. The queen of Narayana, the mother of creatures, is even the Brahman. From those two the whole world is known by Hari, in the Naradiya text.

Not only is the world’s prakriti under My control—‘this is My lordship,’ he says. From the source of effect, from dependence, from the cause’s being the possessor of sat, and from enjoyment, and so on—hence terms like ‘producer,’ ‘sustainer,’ ‘destroyer,’ ‘controller,’ and ‘illuminator’ are used; therefore the hymns praise ‘I am the all.’ But not everything is identical with the form of the enjoyer. Pleasure nor its permanence is directly asserted; still, because of incomprehensible power and originating from that power, it is exceedingly full of bliss, says Narada.

I alone am superior; there is absolutely nothing higher than Me beyond Me.

This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ and similar knowings. Even the non‑denying (abādya) are the same. Yet the words like rasa (taste) indicate, in respect of their nature and essentiality, both the nature (svabhāva) and the essence (sāra) of those who possess rasa; they show the rule (niyamaka) as that same entity, not something bound by non‑denial. Thus the special words such as ‘rasa’ in the passages indicate its essentiality and so on. ‘Bhoga’ (enjoyment) also is specially from rasa, and this is stated for purposes of worship. The Gīta‑commentary has declared the rasas to be rasa‑natured, and likewise their innate essence. Essence is the cause especially in all duties. The enjoyer of the essence is present everywhere, for he is the Lord of the world. He is present throughout the bodies of those endowed with rasa. The non‑deniable and the companions are the objects of meditation; he is Hari to the jñānins. By possession of rasa and the like, Vasudeva is the Lord of the world for others. The nature (svabhāva) is indeed the jīva. Every nature is fixed by Him — what else could there be? There is nothing without that by which the moving and non‑moving become mine. This is said for the purpose of worship: free from duties opposed to dharma and devoid of desires and attachments. The Gīta‑commentary also says: ‘This one, having desire directed by dharma, is to be worshipped — he desires what is desired.’ When desire is absent, desireless ones by meditation grant only knowledge. And so on: ‘punya’ and ‘gandha’ are mentioned with regard to expectant enjoyment. Scripture too says: ‘One goes to the pure (puṇya), not to the gods to sin’ and similar passages. ‘Rita’ and ‘puṇya’: rita is named as puṇya. Rita, truth and dharma, and su‑kṛta are equivalent in their designations. Rita is the dharma of the mind; truth arises by conjunction. The objection ‘one who does not eat is not attacked by another’ (Śvetasvatara etc.) and similar passages are answered by the gross sense of eating mentioned earlier; there is here ‘subtle eating’. In the life of a recluse who subsists on rare food, the body becomes thus for the self. The jīva is not said to be the body, as that would be mere equivocation. From the statement about dream etc., the body is distinguished: the one self is threefold in experience — differing in the states of waking and so on, as Garuḍa says. ‘From this’ indicates the divine activity of the Lord. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is named ishvara in one sense. The Nārada passages speak of distinction: one is without beginning, boundless, ever‑free, another is ... Given the difference of states, one posits difference of persons, not of substantiation. The Gīta‑commentary says that because one enjoys separately from the body, he (the supreme person) is beyond the body; hence the enjoyer and the enjoyed are the same owing to gross enjoyment. ‘Not “I” in them’ is because there is no basis for that claim. The commentary also says: ‘The whole world is dependent on that; nowhere is it without support.’

(Same as 7-8) This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ and similar knowings. Even the non‑denying (abādya) are the same. Yet the words like rasa indicate, regarding the nature and essence of those possessing rasa, both their nature and essence; they show the rule (niyamaka) as that same entity, not something bound by non‑denial. Thus special terms like ‘rasa’ point to essentiality. ‘Bhoga’ is also particularly from rasa, stated for worship. The Gīta‑commentary declares rasas to be rasa‑natured and likewise their essence. Essence is the cause especially in all duties. The enjoyer of essence is everywhere, for he is the Lord. He is established in the bodies of those endowed with rasa. The non‑deniable and the attendants are the meditatable; he is Hari to the knowers. By possession of rasa etc., Vasudeva is lord of the world for others. The nature is the jīva. Every nature is ordained by Him — what else remains? There is nothing without that whereby moving and non‑moving are mine. This is for worship: free from dharma‑contrary desires and attachments. The commentary says one who has desire circumscribed by dharma is to be worshipped; having desire abolished, those without desire by meditation give only knowledge. ‘Puṇya’ and ‘gandha’ are mentioned with regard to expected enjoyment. Scripture confirms going to merit (puṇya), not to sin. ‘Rita’ is puṇya; rita, truth, dharma and su‑kṛta are denotations. Rita is mental dharma; truth follows conjunction. The objection about non‑eating is met by distinguishing gross and subtle eating. In the life of secluded diet, the body becomes so for the self. The jīva is not the body; from dream passages the body is threefold in relation to states. ‘From this’ denotes divine activity. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is called īśvara. Nārada and other texts support a distinction of persons across states, not a difference of substance. Hence the supreme person is beyond the body, and enjoyer and enjoyed are the same in gross enjoyment. ‘Not “I” in them’ is untenable. The world is entirely dependent on that support.

(Same as 7-8) This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ and similar knowings. Even the non‑denying are the same. The term ‘rasa’ and related words indicate, regarding the natures of those possessing rasa, both their nature and essence; they show that the rule‑giver is that same entity, not something bound by negation. ‘Bhoga’ is particularly from rasa, for worship. The commentator states the rasas to be rasa‑natured and likewise their essence. Essence is the cause especially in all duties. The essence‑enjoyer is everywhere, being the Lord. He is present in the bodies of rasa‑endowed beings. The non‑deniable and the companions are the objects of meditation; He is Hari for the knowers. By possession of rasa etc., Vasudeva is world‑lord for others. The nature is the jīva; every nature is ordained by Him. Nothing exists otherwise by which the moving and non‑moving are mine. This is for worship: free from desire opposed to dharma. The commentary also teaches that the one whose desire is circumscribed by dharma is to be worshipped; when desire is absent, the desireless through meditation give only knowledge. ‘Puṇya’ and ‘gandha’ appear regarding anticipated enjoyment. Scripture says one goes to merit, not to sin. ‘Rita’ is puṇya; rita, satya, dharma and su‑kṛta are denotations. Rita is mental dharma; truth is through conjunction. Objections about non‑eating are resolved by distinguishing gross and subtle eating. In secluded eating the body becomes such for the self. The jīva is not the body; dream passages show the body threefold across states. ‘From this’ marks the Lord’s activity. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is termed īśvara in context. Texts like Nārada assert person‑difference across states, not substantive difference. Therefore the supreme person is beyond the body; enjoyer and enjoyed coincide in gross enjoyment. ‘Not “I” in them’ lacks support. The world is wholly dependent on that.

(Same as 7-8) This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ and similar knowings. Even the non‑denying are the same. Words like ‘rasa’ indicate both nature and essence of those endowed with rasa; they point to the rule‑maker as that same entity and not bound by negation. ‘Bhoga’ too arises from rasa, for worship. The Gīta‑commentary affirms the rasas as rasa‑natured and likewise in essence. Essence specially is the cause in all duties. The essence‑enjoyer is everywhere — he is the Lord. He resides throughout the bodies of those possessing rasa. The non‑deniable and companions are the meditatable; he is Hari to the wise. By possession of rasa etc., Vasudeva is the world‑lord for others. The nature is the jīva; every nature is fixed by Him. Nothing exists except by that whereby moving and non‑moving become mine. This is taught for worship: free from dharma‑contrary desire. The commentary states that one whose desire is shaped by dharma is to be worshipped; when desire is absent, the desireless yield only knowledge by meditation. ‘Puṇya’ and ‘gandha’ are named regarding prospective enjoyment. Scripture indicates going to merit, not to sin. ‘Rita’ is puṇya; rita, truth, dharma and su‑kṛta are equivalent labels. Rita is the mind’s dharma; truth is via conjunction. Distinctions between gross and subtle eating answer objections. In secluded diet the body becomes thus for the self. The jīva is not the body; dream passages show the body’s threefold division across states. ‘From this’ denotes the Lord’s operation. The two bodies must be known; the jīva is called īśvara in context. Nārada and other texts teach person‑difference across states rather than substance‑difference. Thus the supreme person transcends the body; enjoyer and enjoyed are the same in gross enjoyment. ‘I am not in them’ is untenable. The entire world depends on that support.

(Same as 7-8) This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ etc. Even the abādya are the same. ‘Rasa’ and like words indicate the nature and essence of those possessing rasa and signify that the regulating entity is that same being, not something subject to negation; thus these special words disclose essentiality. ‘Bhoga’ is specifically from rasa for worship. The Gīta‑commentary declares the rasas to be of rasa‑nature and likewise in essence. Essence is the principal cause in all duties. The essence‑enjoyer pervades everything, for he is the Lord. He is present in the bodies of those endowed with rasa. The non‑deniable and the attendants are objects of meditation; to the knowers he is Hari. By possession of rasa etc., Vasudeva is lord of the world for others. The svabhāva is the jīva; every nature is ordained by Him. Nothing exists without that by which animate and inanimate are mine. This teaching aims at worship: devoid of desires contrary to dharma. The commentary says one whose desire is regulated by dharma is to be worshipped; where desire is absent, the desireless by meditation impart only knowledge. ‘Puṇya’ and ‘gandha’ are mentioned with reference to expected enjoyment. Scripture attests going to puṇya, not to sin. ‘Rita’ is puṇya; rita, satya, dharma and su‑kṛta are terms. Rita is the mental dharma; truth is by conjunction. The objection about non‑eating is met by distinguishing gross and subtle eating. In secluded diet the body becomes thus for the self. The jīva is not the body; dream passages indicate the body is threefold across states. ‘From this’ signifies the Lord’s activity. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is termed īśvara. Nārada and others teach person‑difference across states, not substantive difference. Therefore the supreme person transcends the body; the enjoyer and enjoyed are the same in gross enjoyment. The claim ‘I am not in them’ lacks basis. The world is entirely dependent on that support.

Then how is it not known? Hence ‘tribhi’ (by threefold means). For the purpose of self‑identity it is ‘mayat’; that said, for three purposes — self‑identity, manifestation of modification, and abundant purpose — it is ‘mayat’ threefold. For surely māyā is not composed of the guṇas. ‘He will speak: the body is made of guṇas’ (7.14) — this will be explained. It is established that the sameness of the effect with the cause: the sameness is the conjunction of effect and effect‑property of a distinct thing, as Vyāsa explains. By states and entities: all states are perceivable, guṇa‑made; thus these alone are indicated by ‘ebhi’. ‘Idam’ (this) is stated to indicate the knowledge‑context. Seeing the guṇa‑made body etc., one says that even the Lord appears so — ‘māyā‑mohita’ (deluded by māyā). From the statement in Vyāsa‑yoga that the subordinate, non‑Brahman bodies etc. arose from the mundane, one sees even Viṣṇu likewise by such vision: ‘He is deluded, ignorant,’ etc. From guṇa‑made things to guṇas and beyond, it is said ‘para’ (14.19). And the scriptures declare the sole transcendental (nirguṇa) being; hence He is free from the three guṇas.

How does the delusion of innumerable beings arise from beginningless time? Hence ‘daivī’ (divine). This quality is māyā, deluding; she is the deluder, connected with divine play (sṛṣṭyādi‑kṛīḍā), intoxication, pride, and so on — exceedingly powerful and hard to overcome. Thus commentators render the term devatā as relating to gods’ play, the lustre of superiority, praise, intoxication, delight, dream‑like charm, etc. How is she called ‘daivī’ as if mine? ‘I am indeed a god,’ they say — as Śrī Bhū‑Durga declared. The great māyā distinctively called Vaiṣṇavī is, though devoid of infinite potencies, still rests on the Lord’s own power. Even Rudra and the infinite Brahmā do not possess her portions apart from Viṣṇu. Even these, though hard to overcome, yield by Viṣṇu’s grace, as Vyāsa explains. Therefore it cannot be otherwise; hence ‘mameva’ (to me alone). Those who renounce all else and take refuge only in me, worshipping me as supreme guru, find me as their abode, and so on. The Nārada passage says: by my wealth (mat‑sampatti) men worship gurus; middle‑class people worship gurus; those endowed with my grace and all beings who attach themselves to me are best. The teacher’s symbol and form guide one to self‑attainment.

Then are all included?—that would be unjust. Hence ‘na mām’ (not me). Those deluded by wicked deeds are therefore the worst of men. By having knowledge taken away they are deluded, thus assuming demonic character. This (the distinction) is described as movement and cessation (16.7) and so on: removal becomes overpowering. Vyāsa‑yoga states that knowledge and the jīvas’ natural condition are overwhelmed by māyā. The demons delight in evil; Vyāsa says the gods are given to knowledge, demons to vice.

(Same as 7-15) Then are all included?—that would be unjust. Hence ‘na mām’. Those deluded by wicked deeds are the worst of men. By the theft of knowledge they become deluded and adopt an asuric disposition. This is spoken of as activity and its cessation (16.7) etc.; the overturning is described. Vyāsa‑yoga says knowledge and the natural condition of jīvas are overpowered by māyā. The demons delight in evil; Vyāsa states that deities are disposed to knowledge, demons to evil.

‘Ekasminn eva bhaktiḥ’ — devotion united to one alone is single devotion. Garuḍa states it thus: devotion only to me is called single devotion; it is not called single devotion when directed elsewhere.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

At the end of many births one becomes wise. This is stated: ‘By many births of the brāhmaṇa who kendevoted, knowing those many births, thereafter he attains me.’

“Prakṛtyā svabhāvena.” Here svabhāha denotes both prakṛti and its dispositions — saṃskāra and vāsanā — by conventional usage.

“Yāṁ yāṁ brahmādirūpāṁ tanum.” The Nāradiya text states that Brahmādi-devotees and My devotees have limitless continuity. Questions about the liberated one’s destination and the nature of moksha are answered elsewhere (see Madhva Bhāṣya refs). In discussions of moksha’s means and in Bhrahmavaivarta there are statements about the Lord’s avatāra, the devotee, and where release occurs.

Same as dvaita-gita-bhashya-7-21.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

“Ko viśeṣas tvānye-bhyaḥ” — this indicates the Avyakta (unmanifest). It is free from instrumental bodies. “Tad vān iva pratīyase” indicates the manifest becoming apprehended. The phrase denotes attainment of a personal form beyond the eternal; it is not an action of the senses (see Śvetaśvatara and related passages). Expressions like “ānanda-dehaṁ puruṣaṁ manyante” denote a subordinate bodily conception; the sense should be taken accordingly. Thus: those not knowing the true state are deluded about the supreme.

“Ajnānaṁ ca mad-icchayet” — ignorance and desire for Me: by yoga, by appropriate means, and by māyā. One may be deluded about Me through My own māyā. The stanza also explains the soul’s immersion and the worldly mind’s bondage: by its own power and by the goddess, the great Lord effects that condition.

“Na māṁ māyā badhnāti” — the Vedas teach that māyā does not bind Me. No one is competent, by his own power alone, to bind Me.

Dvandva-moheḥ: through the delusion of pairs (pleasure–pain and such) and attachment to desirable and undesirable objects, one cannot know anything. This arises from underlying causes: at creation and its recurring cycles the afflictions begin in the embodied state. Fundamentally, prior to this is mere ignorance.

“Viparītāś ca kecit santi” — this refers to those whose states are opposite (i.e., different dispositions).

“Jarā-maraṇa-mokṣāya” — for one who has abandoned other aims for release, devotion or praise may be appropriate; but in the Nāradiya it is said that the foremost position belongs to exclusive devotion. The hallmark of the Lord’s devotees is sattvic, single-minded devotion. Descriptions (e.g., of rapid decay of the body’s fuel) characterize the devoted. All the Vedas teach divine matters, and the gods’ function is for Narayana; Narayana is the deity for moksha. Among middling devotees there are none wholly exclusive. Those who know Narayana as the deity for a purpose understand this; see the scriptural citations.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.