Seventh Adhyaya, Fifteenth through Twenty-sixth Khandas (18 mantras)

Mantra 7.15.1.

1. The Chief Breath (Prāṇa) is verily greater than Hope. As the spokes of a wheel are all attached to the nave, so in this Chief Breath are all attached. But the Chief Breath, himself moves, through the Supreme Breath. The Supreme Breath, gives to the Chief Breath all that He desires, (when the Prāṇa mediates for souls to the Supreme); yea gives to him, his very life. This Supreme Breath is verily father, the Supreme Breath, the mother; the Supreme Breath, the sister; the Supreme Breath, the teacher; the Supreme Breath, the Priest.—504.

Mantra 7.15.2.

2. If he says anything harsh to his father, or mother, or brother, or sister, or teacher, or priest, people say to him, ‘fie unto thee, thou art as if thou hast killed thy father, or mother, or brother, or sister, or teacher, or priest.’—505.

Mantra 7.15.3.

3. But when Life Breaths have gone out of them, if one thrusts a pocker into them or burns them to ashes, no one says to him, thou hast killed thy father, mother, brother, sister, teacher or priest.—506.

Mantra 7.15.4.

4. The Supreme Breath, verily exists in all these. He who sees it thus, perceives it thus, knows it thus, becomes the teacher of the highest Truth. If people say to him, thou art an Ativādin, let him say boldly, I am an Ativādin, he need not conceal it. (“Sir is there something higher than Prāṇa?” “Yes, there is something higher than Prāṇa.” “Sir, tell it me”.)—507.

Note.— An Ativādin is one who declares a great truth, or believes in a great truth. Here it means one who believes that Prāṇa (Christ) is the highest truth, next only to God. An Ativādin would, therefore, mean a Christian. One who believes in Christ should never be afraid of declaring his faith in him, and when asked by any one, should never deny him or conceal the truth.

Mantra 7.16.1.

1. (The Lord called the True is higher than Prāṇa). But he in reality is (a higher) Ativādin, who declares the Lord Viṣṇu to be the True. “Sir, may I become an Ativādin by the grace of the True.” “But we must (first) desire to know the True.” “Sir, I desire to know the True.”—508.

Mantra 7.17.1.

1. When one understands (the good Lord as Omniscient) then one declares the Good Lord (Satyam). One who does not understand (Him as Omniscient,) cannot declare Him as the Good. Only he who understands the Omniscient, can declare the Good. This Omniscient, however, we must desire to understand. “Sir, I desire to understand the Omniscient.”—509.

Note.—The word satya means the Good (sat) Ruler (ya).

Mantra 7.18.

1. When one realises Him as the Thinker, then one knows Him as Omniscient. One who does not so realise, cannot understand Him as Omniscient. Only he who knows thus, understands the Omniscient. This Thinker, however, we must desire to understand. “Sir, I desire to understand the Thinker.”—510.

Mantra 7.19.1.

1. When one knows Him as Holy, then one knows Him as Thinker. One who does not know Him as Holy, cannot know Him as Thinker. Only he who knows Him as Holy, can know Him as Thinker. This All-holy, however, we must desire to understand. “Sir, I desire to understand the All-holy.”—511.

Mantra 7.20.1.

1. When one knows Him as Firm, then one believes Him holy. One who has no knowledge of His firmness, cannot believe Him as holy. Only he who knows Him as firm, believes Him as holy. This firm Lord, however, we must desire to understand. “Sir, I desire to understand the firm One.”—512.

Mantra 7.21.1.

1. When one knows Him as Creator, he knows Him as having firmness. The man who does not know Him as Creator, can never know Him as having firmness. He alone knows Him as Firm, who knows Him as Creator. The Creator therefore, should one desire to know. “Sir, I desire to know the Creator.”—513.

Mantra 7.22.1.

1. When one knows Him as Pleasure, he knows Him as the Creator, he who does not know Him as Pleasure, does not know Him as Creator. Realising Him as Pleasure alone, one knows Him as Creator. This Pleasure, however, we must desire to understand. “Sir, I desire to understand Pleasure.”—514.

Mantra 7.23.1.

1. He who is (the Lord Nārāyaṇa) called the Infinity is real pleasure, without the grace of Infinity, there is no pleasure for the finite but Muktajīvas. Infinity alone is pleasure one must, therefore, enquire into Infinity. “Sir, I desire to understand Infinity.”—515.

Note.—Thus Nārāyaṇa called Infinity (Bhūmā) is the Good (Satya), the Omniscient (Vijñāna), the Thinker (Mati), the Holy (Śraddhā), the Firm (Niṣṭhā); the Creator (Kṛti); and the Pleasure (Sukha [Sukham]). All these attributes belong to Him.

Mantra 7.24.1.

Note.—He Who is Infinity, He verily is Pleasure, in the limited (condition of the Muktas) there is no Pleasure (without the grace of Infinity). The Infinity alone is Pleasure. Infinity however, one must try to unterstand. “Sir, I desire to understand Infinity.”

1. Without being permitted by whom, one does not see any thing else, one does not hear any thing else, one does not understand any thing else, He is the Infinite. But where he sees a thing under the control of something else, or hears it such, or understands it such that is the limited. He who is Infinite, He is verily the Immortal. But that which is the limited that is Mortal.

“Sir, in what does this Infinite rest?” In His Own Glory or perhaps not even there.—516.

Mantra 7.24.2.

2. “Cows and horses in this world are said to he glorious, so also elephant and gold, slaves and wives, fields and houses. But I did not mean any such glory,” thus said, Sanat Kumāra. “I said something different. ‘Infinity resting in his own glory,’ is different from any worldly glory.”—517.

Mantra 7.25.1.

1. The Infinite indeed is below, above, behind, before, right and left—this He indeed is Full (Sarvam). Now follows the explanation of the Infinite residing in the Jīva, and called (“I”). The “I” is below, the “I” is above, the “I” is behind, the “1” is before, the “I” is on the right, the “I” is on the left, the “I” verily is the nearest and the Full.—518.

Mantra 7.25.2.

2. Next follows the explanation of the Infinite as the Self (Vāsudeva). Self is below, Self is above, Self is behind, Self is before, Self is on the right, Self is on the left, the Self alone is the nearest and the Full.

He who sees Him thus, thinks of Him thus, understands Him thus, He always thinks the Self to be highest, He sports in the Self, He unites with the Self, has the Self for his joy, and comes directly under the rule of the Self. For Him there is freedom of movement in all the worlds. But those who understand Him differently from this, live in perishable worlds and are under inferior rulers, for them there is no freedom of movements in all worlds.—519.

Mantra 7.26.1.

1. Of the released soul which sees thus, which thinks thus, understands thus, (there takes place the vision of creation, sustenance and dissolution of the Universe. He sees how) the Chief Prāṇa comes out of the Lord (Ātman), how the Hope comes out from the Ātman: how the Steady Memory emerges from Him, how the Ether comes from the Ātman, the Fire from the Ātman, the Water from the Ātman the appearance and disappearance of the world from the Ātman, Food from Ātman, Power from Ātman, Understanding from Ātman, Meditation from Ātman, Unsteady Memory from Ātman, the Will from Ātman, the Mind from Ātman, the Speech from Ātman, the Name from Ātman, the Mantras from Ātman, the Karmas from Ātman, verily how all this Universe conies out from the Ātman alone.—520.

Note.—This verse also describes the glory of the Released Soul. The Mukta sees the panoramic view of the creation of the universe, and how everything at the dawn of creation comes out of the Lord.

Mantra 7.26.2.

2. There is this verse about it: “the released soul does not see death nor illness nor pain. The released sees everything and obtains everything everywhere. He becomes one, He becomes three, He becomes five, He becomes nine, and it is said He becomes eleven as well, nay He becomes one hundred and eleven and one thousand and twenty.”

Right doctrine leads to right thinking. Right thinking conduces to firm meditation. When meditation is firm (there is vision of the Divine) and all ties are unloosened completely.

To the sage Nārada, with his faults all rubbed out, the Great Teacher Sanat Kumāra showed the other side of darkness. Sanat Kumāra is called the Great Warrior, yea he is called the Great Warrior.—521.

Madhva’s commentary called the Bhāṣya:

The last Khaṇḍa ended with the Āśā as the highest. The next Khaṇḍa teaches that Prāṇa is the highest, and we find the enigmatical saying the prāṇa moves by the prāṇa, it gives prāṇa to the prāṇa. It may be construed as meaning that the prāṇa moves by his own power, and that the prāṇa gives his own life to others; but this would be wrong.

Hence the Commentator explains it:—

That which is Prāṇa (the Christ) moves by the PRĀṆA, namely moves by the Supreme Brahman, who is the PRĀṆA and this the true meaning of the phrase “prāṇaḥ prāṇena yāti”. The phrase “prāṇaḥ prāṇam dadāti” means the Supreme Brahman (Prāṇa) gives to Prāṇa all desired objects. That the word prāṇa means the Supreme Brahman, we find from the following Śruti:—He is the PRĀṆA of prāṇa itself (Kena) The phrase “prāṇāya dadāti” means that the Prāṇa hands over to the Supreme PRĀṆA the Soul of the freed, having shown him the Supreme Self. (In other words lie is the Mediator): that the Prāṇa Vāyu gives to the disciple the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman even. He shows the Brahman to him through knowledge.

The word ativādi means he who says (vadati) to the disciple the truth about the highest (atīta), for the Highest has gone beyond all else, (beginning with anna [annam] and ending with prāṇa). (He who proclaims the Highest is Ativādi—the Evangelist). The phrase “Eṣa Tu Vā Ativadāti” uses the word “Tu” (but), in order to show that something new is being taught. He who proclaims the chief Prāṇa as the highest, is called an Ativādi with regard to Prāṇa; but he who proclaims the Lord called Satya, as the highest is higher than that Ativādi who proclaims the Prāṇa only. The phrase “Sir, is there anything higher than Prāṇa,” is to be supplied here in order to complete the sense. This we do on the maxim where any sense of a passage cannot be made out without supplying certain words or sentences, these must be supplied in order to complete the sense. In every sentence the necessary ellipsis must be supplied, if the sentence otherwise gives no meaning. This we do on the maxim enunciated by the venerable Bādarāyaṇa himself in the following Sūtra. (III-3-37). “If it be objected that otherwise (i.e., there being none higher than Prāṇa) he cannot be different from the Supreme Being, we reply the objection is not valid; for (it is fit to narrow the denotation of “all” in the Śruti) as taught by Scripture.”

When it is stated that Prāṇa is the foremost of all, it may seem that the separateness of Prāṇa from the Supreme is not possible to maintain, but this is no difficulty; for the statement will be seen consistent if things are admitted as postulated by Scripture; and the Scriptual teaching here is that Prāṇa is superior, (not absolutely to all, but) to all other souls; and the Supreme Being is superior to Prāṇa. If it be said that there is none higher than Prāṇa, it is to be denied; for

“(It is proper to hold that Satya, the Lord, is superior to Prāṇa, as it may be seen from) supplying the ellipsis; for they (Chāndogas) have added to Satya a distinguishing element (particle) as in every other case.”

That the superiority of the Lord is declared in the passage, would become evident on supplying the question and answer as in the previous cases; for the Sakhins distinguish Satya from Prāṇa thus: “But he indeed speaks of the Supreme Thing, who speaks of Satya”; (i.e., by using the adversative conjunction “tu”—‘but’ they draw the distinction that he who speaks of Satya is really speaking of the Supreme Thing with greater truth than he who speaks of Prāṇa) (Ch. VII. 16). Just as there is the use the of distinguishing attributes and the statements in other cases, (so also distinction is drawn in the case of Satya by saying, “But he, etc.”) And this is said also in the Bṛhat Tantra: “The superiority over man of the gods remains the same even in heaven; and over them, of Prāṇa; and over Prāṇa, certainly that of Hari, the eternally blessed.” Then an objection may be raised thus; not only Viṣṇu called Satya is above Prāṇa, there are many others too; for after Satya, Kṛti, Niṣṭhā, Vijñāna and others are mentioned as different from oue another. But this objection is not valid.

Because the same deity (spoken of as the Akṣara) is described by the terms) Satya, etc.

Satya and other words denote the qualities which only form the essence of the same Supreme Deity. This is said in the Brahma Tarka: “To Him who is different from, and exhalted over, the group (series) of which the first is Nāma and the last is Prāṇa, and whose essence consists of Satya, etc., (truth etc., etc.), (who is the true, etc.,) to Him, the glorious Viṣṇu, the creator of all, obeisance is made. Obeisance is made to that glorious Lord, whose qualities beginning with Satya and ending with Ahaṃkāra are described (in the Śruti) and from whom alone the soul obtains release.”

He who proclaims Prāṇa to be the highest is called an Ativādi, but he who proclaims Viṣṇu to be the highest is more truly entitled to the name of Ativādin. The Lord Viṣṇu is called “Satya” because He is “Sat” or free from all faults, and “Ya” or controller; because He is the good governor, therefore, He is called Satya.

If Viṣṇu is Satya then how do you explain the subsequent Khaṇḍas where Vijñāna, Mati, Śraddhā, Niṣṭhā, Kṛti, Sukha [Sukham], Bhumā [Bhūmā?], Ahaṃkāra, and Ātman are shown; each succeeding to be higher than the preceding one in the series. The Commentator explains that all these names describe the various attributes of the Lord Viṣṇu called here Satya, the good governor.

The Lord Viṣṇu is called Vijñāna, because He has specific (vi) knowledge (jñāna) of everything; or His form is highest knowledge. He is called Mati, because He has general knowledge, i.e., knows everything generically as well. He is called Śraddhā because His form is always holy. He is called Niṣṭhā because He is always firm. He is called Kṛti because He is the creator of all. He is called Sukha [Sukham] because He is full bliss. He is called Bhūmā because he is full of all auspicious qualities.

In describing Bhūmā it has been said that nothing else is seen there. It should not be understood to mean that in Bhūmā nothing else exists; and on the other hand it means that everything else really exists but dependent upon Bhūmā.

Therefore the Commentator says:—

He is called Bhumā because he is full and because without dependence upon Him nothing else can exist. Everything else is small compared with Bhūmā.

The Commentator now explains the phrase that Bhūmā is above and below.

He the Lord full of all auspicious qualities, pervading all localities always from eternity is self dependent, and all objects are under His control from all times.

Being full, all the above attributes are now shown to bo the logical consequence of His being full, and to follow logically one from the other.

Because He is full, therefore, He is all joy, because He is all joy therefore, He is the creator of all; because He is the creator of all, there fore, He is perfectly steady; because He is perfectly steady, therefore He is all holy; because He is all holy, therefore, He is all Knower generically (the thinker); because He knows everything generically, therefore He is all knower specifically (the omniscient); therefore the Lord Hari is omniscient; because He is omniscient, therefore, He is free from all faults and ruler of all (sat=good, free from all faults; and ya=controller; satya= the holy or the Good governor). Bhūmā is a name of Nārāyaṇa, He is also called Ahaṅkāra because He makes the consciousness of ‘I’ in all; since in His aspect of Aniruddha He dwells within all Jīvas and causes their notion of ‘I’ ness.

But the Jīva is atomic, the Lord within the Jīva must therefore be atomic. How is it that He is described here as all-pervading; to this the Commentator replies:—

Though the Lord is atomic as existing within the Jīva, yet through His Lordly and mysterious power, He is all-pervading; just as in the little body of the child (Viṣṇu), Mārkaṇḍeya the sage saw, when he entered into it through his Yoga power, infinite universes endless and beginningless. Thus the Lord Hari, the Supreme, though atomic in Jīva, is yet all-pervading; verily Vāsudeva is the Supreme Lord. He is called Ātmā because He is all-pervading; verily there is no distinction and differences in the Lord Hari. Thus it is in the Parama Sāra.

It is said he who is Bhūmā is immortal that which is small is mortal. This would mean that except the Lord, everything else was mortal. But as the released souls are called immortal, it would mean that such souls are identical with the Lord. The Commentator shows that the word alpa meaning small, refers to the released souls, as compared with Bhūmā the Lord. And that the released souls are not mortal in the strict sense of the word. For then the Goddess Ramā would also become mortal, and would be joyless, because the text says there is no happiness in that which is Alpa.

The true meaning of the phrase ‘there is no happiness in the small’ is that without the grace of Bhūmā, the small or the Mukta Jīvas can have no happiness. Similarly the Muktas are really immortal, but their immortality is dependent upon the Lord, therefore, they are called mortal.

Even the goddess Śrī the Full is alpa but immortal, because she is beloved of the Lord and eternally free and though she is called alpa she is all full, through the loving grace of the Lord. (She in fact is included in the word Bhūmā).

If even the Muktas have no joy, except through the grace of the Lord, why are they described as Ātma-Rati, etc., meaning that they delight in the self, love the self, revel in the self, rejoice in the seif, become a self ruler, He is Lord and Master in all the worlds. To this the Commentator says that the true meaning of the words Ātma-rati, etc., is not what you have given, but they are as follows:—

Ātma-rati means loving the Lord. Ātma-Krīḍa means delighting in the Lord. Ātma Mithuna means revelling in the Lord. Ātma Ānanda means rejoicing in the Lord. Similarly Svarāṭ does not mean an autocrat or self-ruler, but it means he who is directly under the rule of the Lord called “Sva” or the Independent. The released souls take their commands directly from the Lord (and from no inferior being) and the Lord is always directly present to them. Therefore, a released soul is called Svarāṭ, meaning ruled-by-the-Lord.

The phrase “Ātmataḥ Prāṇaḥ Ātmataḥ Āśā”, etc., do not mean that “Prāṇaḥ Āśā”, etc., come out from the self of the released soul, but it means that the released soul sees the panorama of creation spread out before his sight, he sees how the various hierarchies of “Prāṇaḥ, etc.”, come out at the dawn of creation from the Supreme Lord.

The last sentence is “the wise sees everything—Sarvam Hi Paśyaḥ Paśyati” this shows that the Paśyaḥ or the Mukta Jīva only sees creation unfolded before him, and not that he creates. The word Paśya means the seer, the released soul, to whom the past is unfolded. That it means the seer we find also from the following passage:—

“Yadā Paśyate Rukma varṇam”—“when the seer sees that brilliant form” (Kaṭha). The person entitled to meditate on Bhūmā is Lord Brahmā in the first place, directly and principally. He through this knowledge obtains from Viṣṇu the divine love called Rati, and with that he sports with the Lord, forever; and revels in him as a loving wife with her husband and thus he gets Ānanda or bliss. The Supreme Lord is his king and no one else, therefore, he is called Svarāṭ. (Thus except Brahmā no one else is entitled properly to be called Ātma-rati, Ātmakrīḍa etc.) Brahmā alone sees creation of Prāṇa, etc., and not every Mukta.

The other worshippers of Visṇu, lower than Brahmā, obtain fruits according to their fitness, when they get Mukti. There is no doubt in it. Thus it is in Parama Tattva.

The gradation among the Muktas is a well recognised fact with Madhva. Thus all the qualities of Mukta mentioned in khaṇḍas 25 & 26 applly [apply?] literally and fully to Brahmā alone, while they are true, more or less, with regard to other Muktas, according to their evolution.

The phrase “now the instruction about Ahaṅkāra” has been explained by us as referring to Aniruddha. This point is further cleared, by showing the inconsistency of the explanation given by those, who take the word Ahaṅkāra here as the ordinary ego ism, the result of avidyā. The Commentator shows that if Ahaṅkāra here meant any thing other than the Supreme Lord, then it would be impossible to say regarding it, that this Ahaṅkāra is above, or this Ahaṅkāra is below, etc. In fact, all the perfect attributes of Bhūmā are ascribed to Ahaṅkāra. Therefore, Ahaṅkāra here cannot mean the ordinary egoism.

Therefore the Commentator says:—

It is not proper to construe the word Ahaṅkāra taught here, as something different from the Lord; for the following reason:—

The question asked by Nārada is “Sir, I want to know Bhūmā;” and in reply to this Sanat Kumāra describes Bhūma as that which is above that which is below etc., and then he goes on to describe Ahaṅkāra. This being in answer to the question about Bhūmā, Ahaṅkāra cannot but mean Bhuma. Moreover Ahaṅkāra, if taken here to mean not the Lord Bhumā [Bhūmā?], but something else; then this Ahaṅkāra would be as full and infinite as Bhumā [Bhūmā] and consequently equal to the Lord. But no one admits that Ahaṅkāra, meaning egoism, is equal to the Lord. Nor can you say that infinity and fullness ascribed to Ahaṅkāra are figurative only, for when a thing can be construed in its principal sense, it is wrong to interpret it in a figurative sense. Therefore when we can interpret this Ahaṅkāra as a form of the Lord, and thus take the word fullness in its primary and principal sense, we need not take it in its secondary sense and say that the fullness ascribed to Ahaṅkāra is figurative only. Moreover, the question being about Bhumā [Bhūmā?], there was no occasion to enter into a panegyric about Ahaṅkāra, for no one had asked any question about it. The word Atha with which the Khaṇḍa begins and which says Atha, Ataḥ Ahaṅkāra Ādeśa “now an explanation of Ahaṅkāra,” the word “Atha” has the force of not commencing a new topic, but of describing an alternative form. It means, having described Bhūmā now we shall describe it again in another way. The description of Bhūma is of that form of the Lord which is called Nārāyaṇa. Having described this Nārāyaṇa form, we now describe that form of the Lord which is called Aniruddha or Aham. The force of the word Ataḥ in the above sentence is “with the grace of the Lord.” A means Supreme Lord and Taḥ means from; therefore Ataḥ means “from the Supreme Lord or with the grace of the Supreme Lord called ‘a’.”.

We have explained the word Ātma-rati and Svarāṭ, etc., as love of the Lord, having the Lord as one’s sole King, etc. The words Ātma and Sva mean the Supreme Lord, In the word Svayambhū and Ātmabhū the words Sva and Ātma mean the Lord, and they do not mean self, for Brahmā (who is called by these names, and which are generally translated as self-born) is nowhere taught as self-created. On the contrary the following Śruti declares expressly that Brahmā is created,—He who creates Brahmā in the beginning (Svet. VI., 18.) As in the words Svayambḥū and Ātmabhū the words Sva and Ātman mean Viṣṇu; similarly here also the word Ātman means Viṣṇu alone. Therefore when the Śruti says “now an instruction about the Ātman,” it does not refer to the Jīva Ātman, but to the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu. The Śruti says that “from Ātman proceeds Prāṇa, from Ātman springs Hope, from Ātman comes Memory, from Atman Ether, Fire, Water, etc.” Now if Ātman meant here the self of the emancipated Jīva, then it would mean that the Mukta Jīva creates Prāṇa, Memory, Ether, Fire, Water, etc. But as a matter of fact, it is impossible to say that the creation of Prāṇa, etc., is from any Mukta Jīva. Lord Bādarūyana [Bādarāyaṇa?] in his Vedānta Sūtras (IV. 4. 17) clearly says that though Mukta Jīvas enjoy all bliss, and all power, yet they have no power to create an universe. Thus there is no creative power in the released souls, that belongs to the Lord alone. Therefore in this last Khaṇḍa, since mentioned that from Ātman proceeds Prāṇa and from Ātman alone, we conclude that this Ātman here means the Lord alone, and not any released soul, how high soever. Moreover, in the Praśna Upaniṣad it is said Ātmata Eva Prāṇa Jāyate (III. 3. 3) which shows that Prāṇa is produced from Ātman alone and not from anything else; therefore it is produced from the Lord. For it is impossible to construe that passage as referring to the released souls. Similarly in this Skanda Purāṇa it is written that the word Ātma is principally applied to Viṣṇu, and to others only figuratively; similarly the word “Sva”. Therefore Brahmā is called Ātmabhu the child of Viṣṇu, Svabhu the child of the Independent One.

The word “Idam” in the last Khaṇḍa means the Lord, for it literally means ‘this’ and refers to something very near. The Lord is called “Idam” or this, because He is the nearest object of all to us, for He is inside of our very being. The word “Sarvam” there means possessing full attributes, the perfect fullness. The words Bhumā [Bhūmā?], Aham, and Ātmā describe the three aspects of the Lord Hari: as Bhumā [Bhūmā?], He is the cosmic agent, as Aham, He is the Psychic agent inside all Jīvas, and as Ātman, He unites the Jīvas with the world. Thus the Lord is called Idam or this, because in all three aspects He is ever near, the nearest of all.

If the word “Idam Sarvam” meant the Lord is the nearest and Full, then the Grammar would require “Sa Eva Ayam Sarvaḥ” in the masculine gender and not in the neuter. How do you explain this change of gender?

To this the Commentator replies as follows:—

All attributes whether feminine or masculine or neuter are under the Supreme Lord: by His command there is constant interchange of gender everywhere; therefore, the Lord is called “Kaḥ” (Masculine) “Kim” (Feminine), “Kam” (Neuter). Everything is verily the Supreme, He is the Ātmā of all; the Aditi and words like Devas, etc., of whatever gender they may be, apply to the Lord. Thus it is in the Liṅga Nirṇaya.

The phrase “Āhāra Śuddhau Sattva Śuddhi” is generally translated as meaning “if the food is clean, the mind is clean.” But this is not the true meaning of the phrase. The word āhāra hero does not mean food, but means the study of Śāstra, the Āhāra or acceptance of teaching. Therefore the Commentator says

The word Āhāra means the absorbing (āhṛti) of knowledge from the Guru (teacher). When this āhāra or absorption of knowledge, is pure, then follows the purity of the mind (for if the teaching is wrong the mind can never be purified). When there is purity of knowledge or mental purity, then comes the steady memory, when there is steadiness of memory then there is the direct vision (aparokṣa) of the Lord Hari, when there is direct vision then there is final release (mokṣa). Thus it is in the Sādhana Nirṇaya.