B.G 11.14
tataḥ sa vismayāviṣṭo hṛṣṭaromā dhanañjayaḥ. praṇamya śirasā devaṁ kṛtāñjalir abhāṣata ॥14॥
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.
"ātmānam-avyayam", "paramaṁ rūpam-aiśvaram", "sarvāścaryamayaṁ devam-anantaṁ viśvato-mukham" - ityādi-rūpa-viśeṣaṇāt-ca rūpasya īśvara-sākṣāt-svarūpatvaṁ nityatvaṁ tata eva cid-ānanda-ādi-ātmakatvaṁ ca siddham.
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.
"mama dehe" ity-uktatvāt-ca ādityādīnām bhedaḥ siddhaḥ.
Due to the statement "in my body", the distinction between the sun and other forms is established.
"me rūpāṇi", "sarvato-'ananta-rūpam" ityādeḥ "draṣṭum-icchāmi te rūpam" ity-ādeḥ-ca ekasya-eva abhinna-ananta-rūpatvaṁ ca.
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.
"ekaṁ rūpaṁ harer nityam acintyaiśvarya-yogataḥ. bahu-saṅkhyā-gocaraṁ ca viśeṣāt-eva kevalam॥
"The one eternal form of Hari appears manifold only due to inconceivable divine majesty and distinctions.
abhāvo yatra bhedasya pramāṇa-avasito bhavet. viśeṣaḥ nāmā tatraiva viśeṣa-vyavahāravān॥
Where the absence of difference is established by valid proof, there is a distinction referred to with separate functional significance.
viśeṣo'pi svarūpaṁ sa svanirvāhaka eva ca. dravyātmanā sa nityo'pi viśeṣātmā eva jāyate॥
The distinction too is the essential nature, being self-sustaining; though eternal in substance, it manifests precisely as having a distinctive nature.
nityā eva viśeṣāś ca kecid evaṁ dvidhā eva saḥ. vastu-svarūpam-asti-eva-ity-evaṁ-ādiṣu-abhedinaḥ॥
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.”
viśeṣo'nubhavād eva jñāyate sarva-vastuṣu. na ca aviśeṣitaṁ kiñcit vācyaṁ lakṣyaṁ tathā mitam॥
Distinction is known only through experience in all entities. Nothing undifferentiated can be described, indicated, or measured.
viśiṣṭasya svato'nyatve svasya-ameyatva-hetutaḥ. naiva jñeyaṁ viśiṣṭaṁ ca māna-abhāvāt-ca no bhavet॥
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.
svayam-iti-api hi svatva-viśeṣeṇa vivarjitam. na jñeyaṁ tad-viśeṣyaṁ ca tathā eva iti-anavasthitiḥ॥
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.
abhede na virodho'sti jñāta-ajñātaṁ yato'khilam. tad-eva jñātā-rūpeṇa jñātam ajñātam anyathā॥
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.
abhinnaśya viśiṣṭatvāt na doṣa-dvayam-api uta. ekatva-anubhavāt-ca eva viśeṣa-anubhavāt-api. taj-jñāna-anubhavāt-ca eva na doṣa-dvaya-sambhavaḥ॥
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.
bhedābhedau ca tau naiva kartṛ-bhoktṛ-viśeṣaṇe. mad-anya iti-anubhavaḥ yataḥ naiva asti kasyacit॥
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."
bhedo viśeṣaṇasya-api na-antarasya kvacid bhavet. śuddha-svarūpa-ityādau abhedasya-eva darśanāt॥
Distinction does not arise even with respect to qualifiers or internal attributes, since statements like "pure essence" only reflect non-difference.
apṛthag dṛṣṭi-niyamāt bala-jñāna-ādikasya ca. aikyaṁ bāhya-viśeṣāṇāṁ pṛthag dṛṣṭyā eva tan na tu॥
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.
viśeṣa-hetu-abhāve'pi dvaividhyaṁ kalpyate yadi. kalpanā-gaurava-ādyāḥ tu doṣāḥ tatra ati-saṅgatāḥ॥
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.
na ekatvaṁ nāpi nānātvaṁ niyamāt asti acetane. bhedābhedau anubhavāt atas-tatra anyathā-gateḥ॥
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.
eko'ham anyataḥ anyaś ca ity evam eva vyavasthitau. bhedābhedau cetaneṣu tasmāt na eka-prakāratā॥
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.
ekam iti eva yat jñātaṁ bahutvena eva tat punaḥ. paṭādyaṁ jñāyate yasmāt bhedābhedau kuto na tat॥
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?
tantubhyaḥ anyaḥ paṭaḥ sākṣāt kasya dṛṣṭipathaṁ gataḥ. ananyaś cet tantu-bhāve paṭa-abhāvaḥ kuto bhavet॥
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?
na ca ātmani viśeṣo'tra dṛṣṭāntatvaṁ gamiṣyati. śuddho'ham-pratyayaḥ yasmāt tatra abheda-pradarśakaḥ॥
No distinction in the self can serve as an example, because the pure "I" cognition itself reveals non-difference there.
atra avayava-bhedena syāt eva hi anavasthitiḥ. na ca anavayavaṁ vastu kvacit syāt māna-gocaram॥
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.
pūrvāpara-ādi-bhedena yataḥ aṁśaḥ asya avagamyate. upādhiḥ api eka-deśa-sambaddhaḥ santam-eva hi. jñāpayed bhedam-akhilaṁ grasan sa vibhajet katham॥
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?
tasmāt guṇādikam-api nāsti anaṁśatayā kvacit. bhāva-abhāva-vyavahṛteḥ vidyamāne'pi vastuni. bhedābhedau guṇa-ādeś ca jaḍe vastuni saṁsthitau॥
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.
cetane śakti-rūpeṇa guṇādeḥ bhāva iṣyate. suptaḥ ayaṁ balavān vidvān ity-ādi-vyavahārataḥ॥
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.”
na ca evaṁ śakti-rūpeṇa jaḍe vyavahṛtiḥ kvacit. ekam eva advitīyaṁ tat na iha nānā asti kiñcana. mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyum āpnoti ya iha nānā iva paśyati॥
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.
yathodakaṁ durge vṛṣṭaṁ parvateṣu vidhāvati. evaṁ dharmān pṛthak paśyan tān eva anuvidhāvati. ityādi-śruti-mānāt ca param-aiśvaryataḥ tathā. sarvaṁ tu ghaṭate viṣṇau yat kalyāṇa-guṇa-ātmakam॥
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.
ityādi brahma-tarke ॥14॥
- stated thus in the ancient testimonial, brahma-tarka, i.e. the reasoning concerning Brahman.
