B.G 11.14
ततः स विस्मयाविष्टो हृष्टरोमा धनञ्जयः। प्रणम्य शिरसा देवं कृताञ्जलिरभाषत ॥१४॥
Then Dhanañjaya, filled with wonder and with his hair standing on end, bowed his head and, with joined palms, spoke to the god.
Gīta Tātparya 11.14
The forms of the lord are the direct essence of the Supreme Lord, eternal, and are of the nature of consciousness and bliss. It is distinct from insentient such as the sun. He alone possesses undivided, infinite forms. The one eternal form of Hari appears manifold only due to inconceivable divine majesty and distinctions.
"आत्मानमव्ययम्", "परमं रूपमैश्वरम्", "सर्वाश्चर्यमयं देवमनन्तं विश्वतो-मुखम्ऽ" - इत्यादिरूप विशेषणाच्च रूपस्य ईश्वरसाक्षात्स्वरूपत्वं नित्यत्वं तत एव चिदानन्दाद्यात्मकत्वं च सिद्धम्।
From the descriptions such as "imperishable being" (ātmānam-avyayam), "supreme divine form" (paramaṁ rūpam-aiśvaram), "the wondrous, infinite, all-faced deity" (sarvāścaryamayaṁ devam-anantaṁ viśvato-mukham), it is established that the form is the direct essence of the Supreme Lord, eternal, and is of the nature of consciousness and bliss.
"मम देहे" इत्युक्तत्वाच्च आदित्यादीनां भेदः सिद्धः।
Due to the statement "in my body", the distinction between the sun and other forms is established.
"मे रूपाणि", "सर्वतोऽनन्तरूपम्" इत्यादेः "द्रष्टुमिच्छामि ते रूपम्" इत्यादेश्च एकस्यैव अभिन्नानन्तरूपत्वं च।
From statements like "my forms", "infinite form in all directions", and "I wish to see your form", it is established that He alone possesses undivided infinite forms.
"एकं रूपं हरेर्नित्यमचिन्त्यैश्वर्ययोगतः। बहुसङ्ख्यागोचरं च विशेषादेव केवलम्॥
"The one eternal form of Hari appears manifold only due to inconceivable divine majesty and distinctions.
अभावो यत्र भेदस्य प्रमाणावसितो भवेत्। विशेषो नामा तत्रैव विशेषव्यवहारवान्॥
Where the absence of difference is established by valid proof, there is a distinction referred to with separate functional significance.
विशेषोऽपि स्वरूपं स स्वनिर्वाहक एव च। द्रव्यात्मना स नित्योऽपि विशेषात्मैव जायते॥
The distinction too is the essential nature, being self-sustaining; though eternal in substance, it manifests precisely as having a distinctive nature.
नित्या एव विशेषाश्च केचिदेवं द्विधैव सः। वस्तु-स्वरूपम्-अस्त्येव-इत्येवं-आदिषु-अभेदिनः॥
Some affirm that distinctions themselves are eternal and twofold, while those who assert non-difference speak in terms such as “the true nature of the entity does indeed exist.”
विशेषोऽनुभवादेव ज्ञायते सर्ववस्तुषु। न चाविशेषितं किञ्चिद् वाच्यं लक्ष्यं तथा मितम्॥
Distinction is known only through experience in all entities. Nothing undifferentiated can be described, indicated, or measured.
विशिष्टस्य स्वतोऽन्यत्वे स्वस्यामेयत्वहेतुतः। नैव ज्ञेयं विशिष्टं च मानाभावाच्च नो भवेत्॥
If the qualified entity were other than itself, then due to its immeasurability, it could not be known; and because of lack of valid means, the qualified would not exist for us.
स्वयमित्यपि हि स्वत्वविशेषेण विवर्जितम्। न ज्ञेयं तद्विशेष्यं च तथैवेत्यनवस्थितिः॥
Even the term “oneself” ('svayam') if devoid of the distinction of selfhood, is unknowable; and so too is that which it qualifies — thus arises an infinite regress.
अभेदे न विरोधोऽस्ति ज्ञाताज्ञातं यतोऽखिलम्। तदेव ज्ञातरूपेण ज्ञातम् अज्ञातम् अन्यथा॥
There is no contradiction in non-difference, since all that is known and unknown is just that same reality — known in the form of the knower, unknown otherwise.
अभिन्नस्य विशिष्टत्वात् न दोषद्वयमप्युत। एकत्वानुभवाच्चैव विशेषानुभवादपि। तज्ज्ञानानुभवाच्चैव न दोषद्वयसम्भवः॥
Due to the qualified nature of the non-different, there is indeed no dual defect. The experience of unity, the experience of distinctions, and the direct knowledge of both — all prevent the arising of such dual fault.
भेदाभेदौ च तौ नैव कर्तृभोक्तृविशेषणे। मदन्य इत्यनुभवो यतो नैवास्ति कस्यचित्॥
Difference and non-difference do not truly apply to the distinctions of agent and enjoyed, since no one ever truly experiences anything as "other than myself."
भेदो विशेषणस्यापि नान्तरस्य क्वचिद् भवेत्। शुद्धस्वरूप इत्यादौ अभेदस्यैव दर्शनात्॥
Distinction does not arise even with respect to qualifiers or internal attributes, since statements like "pure essence" only reflect non-difference.
अपृथग् दृष्टि-नियमात् बल-ज्ञान-आदिकस्य च। ऐक्यं बाह्य-विशेषाणां पृथग् दृष्ट्यैव तन् न तु॥
The unity of strength, knowledge, and the like is affirmed due to their inseparable perception; the seeming multiplicity of external distinctions arises only through separate perception, not in reality.
विशेष-हेत्व-अभावेऽपि द्वैविध्यं कल्प्यते यदि। कल्पना-गौरव-आद्याः तु दोषाः तत्र अतिसङ्गताः॥
If duality is imagined even in the absence of any cause for distinction, then the defects, such as unnecessary assumptions and conceptual heaviness, are strongly applicable there.
नैकत्वं नापि नानात्वं नियमादस्त्यचेतने। भेदाभेदावनुभवादतस्तत्रान्यथागतेः॥
Neither unity nor multiplicity necessarily exists in the non-conscious; difference and non-difference are known through experience, hence only arise when change is perceived.
एकोऽहमन्यतोऽन्यश्चेत्येवमेव व्यवस्थितौ। भेदाभेदौ चेतनेषु तस्मान्नैकप्रकारता॥
The awareness “I am one, and another is different” is the natural experience among the conscious; thus, difference and non-difference coexist, and uniformity does not prevail there.
एकमित्येव यज्ज्ञातं बहुत्वेनैव तत् पुनः। पटाद्यं ज्ञायते यस्माद् भेदाभेदौ कुतो न तत्॥
That which is first known as one is again experienced as many, like cloth and its threads; hence, why should not both difference and non-difference be accepted there?
तन्तुभ्योऽन्यः पटः साक्षात् कस्य दृष्टिपथं गतः। अनन्यश्चेत् तन्तुभावे पटाभावः कुतो भवेत्॥
Who has ever seen the cloth directly as something other than the threads? And if it is not different, then how can there be threads absence when the cloth remains?
न चात्मनि विशेषोऽत्र दृष्टान्तत्वं गमिष्यति। शुद्धोऽहम्प्रत्ययो यस्मात् तत्राभेदप्रदर्शकः॥
No distinction in the self can serve as an example, because the pure "I" cognition itself reveals non-difference there.
अत्रावयवभेदेन स्यादेव ह्यनवस्थितिः। न चानवयवं वस्तु क्वचित् स्यात् मानगोचरम्॥
If distinction were by parts here, it would lead to regress. And a truly partless substance can never be the object of valid cognition anywhere.
पूर्वापरादिभेदेन यतोऽंशोऽस्यावगम्यते। उपाधिरप्येकदेशसम्बद्धः सन्तमेव हि। ज्ञापयेद् भेदमखिलं ग्रसन् स विभजेत् कथम्॥
Since a part is inferred by differences such as before and after, and even an adjunct is linked only to a part while remaining existent — how can it, while engulfing all, still divide and indicate an entire distinction?
तस्माद् गुणादिकमपि नास्त्यनंशतया क्वचित्। भावाभावव्यवहृतेः विद्यमानेऽपि वस्तुनि। भेदाभेदौ गुणादेश्च जडे वस्तुनि संस्थितौ॥
Therefore, qualities and such do not exist in any truly partless way; even when the object exists, due to the behavior of presence and absence, both difference and non-difference, and attribution of qualities, are found in inert substances.
चेतने शक्तिरूपेण गुणादेः भाव इष्यते। सुप्तोऽयं बलवान् विद्वानित्यादिव्यवहारतः॥
In the conscious being, the existence of qualities such as strength and knowledge is accepted as potency, based on expressions like “He is asleep, strong, and wise.”
न चैवं शक्तिरूपेण जडे व्यवहृतिः क्वचित्। एकमेवाद्वितीयं तन्नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन। मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति॥
But such functional attribution as potency is never applied to inert things. That is one without a second — here, indeed, there is no multiplicity. He who sees multiplicity here, as if real, goes from death to death.
यथोदकं दुर्गे वृष्टं पर्वतेषु विधावति। एवं धर्मान् पृथक् पश्यन् तान् एव अनुविधावति। इत्यादि-श्रुतिमानात् च परम्-ऐश्वर्यतः तथा। सर्वं तु घटते विष्णौ यत् कल्याण-गुण-आत्मकम्॥
Just as rainwater flows across mountain slopes from a high peak, so one who sees qualities as distinct pursues them alone again and again. From such scriptural testimony and due to supreme sovereignty, all auspiciously qualified reality indeed coheres in Viṣṇu.
इत्यादि ब्रह्मतर्के ॥१४॥
- stated thus in the ancient testimonial, brahma-tarka, i.e. the reasoning concerning Brahman.
