Dashak 8 · Samāsa 2

Earlier the listeners objected: this should now be expounded — how, in the formless, did moving-and-unmoving arise?

Its answer is this: Brahman which is eternal — there māyā, a false-appearance, is of *vivartarūpa* (apparent-modification).

At first is one Parabrahman — eternally-mukta, non-acting, supreme; there, un-manifest, subtle — arose the root-māyā (*mūla-māyā*).

[Śloka] 'ādyam ekam parabrahma nitya-mukta-avikriyam | tasya māyā-samāveśo jīvam avyākṛtātmakam'. Objection: one formless Brahman — mukta, non-acting, changeless — where did māyā-spectacle come from?

Brahman is unbroken nirguṇa; there, who holds desire? In nirguṇa without saguṇa, there is no desire.

At the root, there is no saguṇa; therefore it is named nirguṇa; how did saguṇa come to be there?

'Nirguṇa came to have qualities' — if one says so, by this speech one courts foolishness.

Some say: 'the formless One, who is doer-and-non-doer, is Deva; His sport — how can the poor jīva know?'

Some say: 'He is Paramātmā; who knows His glory? The poor jīvātman — what can he know?'

Vaguely they tell His glory, hiding all śāstra-meaning; forcibly, they call the nirguṇa — 'doer-and-non-doer.'

At the root there is no doer-ness; who is *kartum akartā*? The talk of doer-and-non-doer — is at root false.

That which is nirguṇa at the root — where is doer-ness there? Then who held the desire — for the composition of the sṛṣṭi?

'The desire is Parameśvara's' — such is many's reasoning; but what desire [can] that nirguṇa [have]? — this is not understood.

Then who did all this? Or did it just happen by itself? Without God — how was it built up?

If all happened without God, where does God have a place? Here God's non-being — appears.

If God is said to be creator, then saguṇatā is encountered; the talk of God's nirguṇa-ness is drowned.

God is nirguṇa at the root; then who is the sṛṣṭi-doer? Doer-ness's saguṇa is perishable.

Here reasoning fell: how did the moving-and-unmoving arise? If we say māyā is independent — that too seems contrary.

'No one made māyā; it spread on its own' — speaking so, the talk of God is drowned.

God is nirguṇa, self-evident; what connection has He with māyā? Speaking so, contradiction appeared.

All doer-ness has fallen on māyā's head; then there is no God — to uplift the devotees.

Without God, bare māyā — who will take it to dissolution? For us devotees, there is no one — to protect.

Therefore 'māyā is independent' — such reasoning does not fit; the creator of māyā, the all-Lord — is one alone.

Then how is He, Īśvara? What is the reasoning of māyā? This should now be elaborated.

Listeners, be attentive; make the mind one-pointed; now the narrative-connection — listen attentively.

On one objection, different experiences among people; those will all be spoken — in sequence.

Some say: 'God did it, therefore it expanded'; if God had no desire — then where did this māyā come from?

Some say: 'God is nirguṇa; who holds desire there? Māyā is false — it did not arise at all.'

Some say: 'it is directly seen; how to call it non-existent? Māyā is *anādi* — the power of Īśvara.'

Some say: 'if it is true, how is it dissolved by jñāna? It appears like true — but it is false.'

Some say: 'if false by nature, why should discipline be done? Bhakti-sādhana has been spoken by God — for abandoning māyā.'

Some say: 'it appears false due to delirium-of-ignorance; medicine-discipline should be taken — but the visible is false.'

Endless sādhanas have been spoken; [people are] confused by many opinions; yet māyā cannot be renounced — how to call it false?

Māyā is called false by yoga-utterance; false in Vedas-śāstras-Purāṇas; false in many expositions — māyā is spoken.

Saying 'māyā is false, it has gone' — this news is not heard; saying 'false' — it clings immediately.

One whose heart has no jñāna — has not recognized the noble; to him, *mithyā-abhimāna* feels true.

As each has resolved — to him [reality] is fruited so; as he looks, so reflected — such māyā.

Some say: 'where is māyā? What is, is all Brahman'; as curdled-and-melted ghee — the unity does not break.

'Curdled' and 'melted' — this is not spoken in svarūpa; by this speech, the [unity] is broken — so some say.

Some say: 'all is Brahman' — he who does not know the secret; the delusion in his heart — has not yet gone.

Some say: 'there is one God; where has 'all' been brought? All-Brahman is strange — feels wondrous.'

Some say: 'one alone is true, no second'; all-Brahman spontaneously happened — in this manner.

All is false at once; what remains is the true Brahman; such utterances with śāstra-support — some speak.

Ornament and gold — there is no difference; useless exhaustion — so some say.

A low one-sided simile — how can it fit the substance? Signs-manifestation — no sameness is there for the un-manifest.

On placing sight on gold — manifestation is at the root; looking at ornament-gold — it is gold only.

At the root, gold is manifest — heavy, one-sided, yellow; how can the example of incomplete fit the complete?

Every example is one-sided; it must be given to make [the thing] understood; between ocean and wave — where is difference?

Excellent, middle, low — by one example is clearly known; by [a bad] example, ruined — doubt grows.

Where is ocean, where is wave? Equating the un-moving with the moving — the sport [of māyā] should not be taken as true.

This spectacle is imagination; shows many appearances to people; otherwise, know — it is Brahman itself.

Such debate between one-and-other; while debating, the doubt remained; now listen ahead — attentively.

It has become known that māyā is false; but how did it [arise] in Brahman? If we say 'nirguṇa did it' — but it is false at root.

In the word 'false' there is nothing; there — what has been done by whom? 'Doing' is un-occurring in the nirguṇa.

The doer is formless at the root; what was done is of false-form; nevertheless, let us clear the listener's objection.