गुणरूप — समास 2: ब्रह्मनिरुपण

जें जें कांहीं साकार दिसे । तें तें कल्पांती नासे । स्वरुप तें आसतचि असे । सर्वकाळ ॥ १ ॥

जें जें आकारासहित असते तें तें अखेर नाश पावतें. पण परमात्स्वरुप मात्र सदासर्वकाळ जसेंच्या तसेंच राहतें.

When you see this `thing' with form (ie. `I am everywhere') then, that parabrahman, beyond all imagination, is not understood. Then that eternal swarup appears as a moment of time and there is this `I am' (this `I am' is the beginning of time ie. to simply be or in the `now').

जें सकळांमध्यें सार । मिथ्या नव्हे तें साचार । जें कां नित्य निरंतर । संचलें असे ॥ २ ॥

जें सर्व वस्तुंचें सार तत्व असतें तें पूर्णोणें सत्य असतें. तें कधींच खोटे होत नाही. तें सदैव सगळीकडें भरुन राहतें.

But even then that essence within this `I am' does not become false, for It is the only Truth. How can mula maya be that eternal and *nirantar that is complete and full? *(parabrahman-without an inner space or `I am')

तें भगवंताचें निजरुप । त्यासि बोलिजे स्वरुप । याहि वेगळीं अमूप । नामें तयाचीं ॥ ३ ॥

तेंच भगवंताचें स्वतःचे रुप होय. त्याला स्वरुप असें म्हणतात. शिवाय त्यास आणखी पुष्कळ नांवें आहेत.

Only when this `I am' gets absorbed in that parabrahman can that be called the swarup. For this `I am' divides that immeasurable swarup.

त्यास नामाचा संकेत । कळावया हा दृष्टांत । परी तें स्वरुप नामातीत । असतचि असे ॥ ४ ॥

स्वरुपाला ओळखण्यासाठीं नाम हा एक संकेत आहे. त्याची कल्पना येण्यासाठीं दृष्टांत द्यावा लागतो. परंतु तें स्वरुप सर्व नामांच्या व दृष्टांतांच्या पलीकडे अगदीं जसेंच्या तसें असतें.

Though to understand that thoughtless swarup that is at the end of this visible `all', we first assign the qualities of this `I am' to that swarup. Still that swarup is ever-existing beyond this `I am'.

दृश्यासबाह्य संचलें । परी तें विश्र्वास चोरलें । जवळिच नाहींसें जालें । असतचि कैसें ॥ ५ ॥

सर्व दृश्य पदार्थांच्या आंतबाहेर तें स्वरुप भरुन आहे. पण तें सर्वांपासून गुप्त आहे. प्रत्येकाच्या अगदी जवळ असूनसुद्धा तें त्यांना नसल्यासारखें झालेलें आहे.

It is completely full inside and outside of this visible `all', but is hidden to the world. How can That which only exists and is so close, seem like it is not?1

ऐसा ऐकोनियां देव । उठे दृष्टीचा भाव । पाहों जातां दिसे सर्व । दृश्यचि आवघें ॥ ६ ॥

भगवंताचे वर्णन ऐकून सामान्य माणसाला वाटते कीं भगवंताला डोळ्यांनी पहावें. पण तसें करावयास गेल्यावर सर्वत्र दृश्यच आढळते.

It is in fact God who is listening and this understanding of the `all' that arises, is Him. Still when you try to understand Him then, you will no longer see a world of many names and forms and you will perceive this visible `all'.

दृष्टीचा विषयो दृश्य । तोचि जालियां सादृश्य । तेणें दृष्टी पावे संतोष । परी तें देखणें नव्हे ॥ ७ ॥

दृश्य हा दृष्टीचा विषय होय. वस्तु दृश्य होऊन प्रत्यक्ष डोळ्यांनी पाहातां आली म्हणजे आम्ही वस्तु पाहीली असें वाटुन आनंद होतो. पण केवळ डोळ्यांनी पाहाणें हें कांहीं खरें पाहाणें नव्हे.

When this visible `all' is the object of your attention then, it is in truth, that atma appearing to Itself only. And due to this, your seeing gets satisfaction (ie. `I see myself everywhere'), but this vision of knowledge is not that Reality.

दृष्टीस दिसे तें नासे । येतद्विषंई श्रुति असे । म्हणौन जें दृष्टीस दिसे । तें स्वरुप नव्हे ॥ ८ ॥

जें जें डोळ्यांनी दिसतें नाश पावतें. असें सांगणारें एक श्रुतिवचन आहे. (यद् दृष्टं तद् नष्टं ) म्हणून डोळ्यांना जें दिसतें तें स्वस्वरुप नव्हे.

When this visible is seen then, that Reality is lost. The shruti have spoken in regard to this (neti, neti/not this and not that). Therefore, whatever this mula maya sees it not that swarup.

स्वरुप तें निराभास । आणी दृश्य भासलें साभास । भासास बोलिला नास । वेदांतशास्त्रीं ॥ ९ ॥

स्वरुपाला भास नाहीं. दृष्याच्या ठिकाणीं भास आहे. मिथ्यापण आहे. भास नाशवंत असतो असें वेदान्तशास्त्र सांगतें.

That swarup is beyond any appearance and this `all' is the appearance of an apparent form. But the shasthras and vedanta have stated, this `speech' is an appearance and therefore destructible. (neti, not this world, and neti, not that `I am' either)

आणी पाहातां दृश्यचि भासे । वस्तु दृश्यावेगळी असे । स्वानुभवें पाहातां दिसे । तें दृश्यासबाह्य ॥ १० ॥

आपण जेव्हां डोळ्यांनी पाहातों तेंव्हां फक्त दृश्य दिसतें. सद्ववस्तु किंवा स्वरुप सकल दृश्याहून वेगळी आहे. स्वरुपानुभव आला म्हणजे सद्वस्तु दृश्याला आंतबाहेर व्यापून आहे असें दिसतें.

And if it is understood that this visible `all' is also an appearance and not true then, there is that Self separate from this visible. This is Self-experience/swa-anubhav and it is understood that whatever is seen, inside and outside of this `all', is that Reality. 1Gospel of Thomas- Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."

जें निराभास निर्गुण । त्याची काये सांगावी खूण । परी तें स्वरुप जाण । सन्निधचि असे ॥ ११ ॥

स्वरुपाला आभास किंवा गुण नाही. त्यामुळें त्याला ओळखण्याची खूण सांगता येत नाही. तरी ही तें स्वरुप जवळच आहे. यांत शंका नाही.

Then this mula maya is that nirgun, void of any appearance. What can be told about That? (words come back from that inexpressible Self). But when that swarup is knowing then that Self is very close by (ie. when there is witnessing, then He is felt to be near by).

जैसा आकाशीं भासला भास । आणी सकळांमधें आकाश । तैसा जाणिजे जगदीश सबाह्य अभ्यंतरीं ॥ १२ ॥

आपण आकाश पाहतों. त्यावेळीं आपल्याला आकाश दिसलें असा भास होतो. आकाश वेगळेंपणानें आपल्याला दिसत नाही. कारण सर्व बाजूंना तें पसरलेलें आहे. त्याचप्रमाणें परमेश्र्वर सर्व दृश्य वस्तूंना सगळीकडे आंत व बाहेर व्यापून आहे.

Just as in the space this `all' appears (when nothing is there, everything is there) and in this `all' there is this space. So too, one should know that the `Lord of the world' is inside and outside of this world (ie. He is this space from which the world appears and He is beyond this space even).

उदकामधें परी भिजेना । पृथ्वीमधें परी झिजेना । वन्हीमधें परी सिजेना । स्वरुप देवाचें ॥ १३ ॥

भगवंताचें स्वरुप पाण्यांत व्यापून आहे पण तें भिजत नाहीं. पृथ्वीमध्यें व्यापून आहे पण झिजत नाहीं. अग्नीमध्यें तें व्यापून आहे पण जळत नाहीं.

He is in the water but is not wet. He is in the earth but does not get worn away. He is in the fire, but that swarup of God does not get burnt.

तें रेंद्यामधें परी बुडेना । तें वायोमधें परी उडेना । सुवर्णीं असे परी घडेना । सुवर्णासारिखें ॥ १४ ॥

तें चिखलामध्यें व्यापून आहे पण बुडत नाही. वार्‍यामध्यें व्यापून आहे पण उडत नाही. सोन्यामध्यें व्यापून आहे पण त्याचे सोन्यासारखें दागिने बनवता येत नाहीत.

That is in the mire but does not drown. That is in the wind but does not fly away. That is in the gold but it does not get formed into golden ornaments.

ऐसें जें संचलें सर्वदा । परी ते आकळेना कदा । अभेदामाजीं वाढवी भेदा । ते हे अहंता ॥ १५ ॥

अशा रीतीनें सदासर्वकाळ सर्व ठिकाणीं घनदाटपणें भरुन राहिलेलें स्वस्वरुप अनुभवाच्या कक्षेंत आणणें कठीण असतें. त्या भेदरहित स्वरुपामध्यें अहंता भेद निर्माण करते.

That pervades like mula maya but that swarup can never be understood. And if a division appears in that indivisible thoughtless swarup then, there is this ahamta/ego of `I am' (ie. space).

तिच्या स्वरुपाची खूण । सांगों कांहीं वोळखण । अहंतेचे निरुपण । सावध ऐका ॥ १६ ॥

अहंतेचें स्वरुप ध्यानांत यावें म्हणून कांहीं खुणा सांगतो. अहंतेचें हे विवेचन लक्ष देऊन ऐकावें.

If the understanding of that swarup becomes this known `thing' then, you should listen very alertly to this ahamta/`I am'. For the only way to become that swarup is to remain as this `thing'.

जे स्वरुपाकडे पावे । अनुभवासवें झेपावे । अनुभवाचे शब्द आघवे । बोलोन दावी ॥ १७ ॥

अहंता सूक्ष्म होत जाऊन स्वरुपापर्यंत पोहोचते. ती स्वरुपाच्या अनुभवाच्या मागें मागें राहाते. अनुभव जेथपर्यंत जाईल तेथपर्यंत जाते. मग तो अनुभव शब्दांनीं वर्णन करुन सांगते.

When mula maya reaches towards that swarup then, this ahamta/ego springs up along with this `experience' and then, while `speaking' this `word', it takes the ego of a gross body and shows the `many' things.

म्हणे आतां मीच स्वरुप । तेंचि अहंतेचें रुप । निराकारीं आपोआप । वेगळी पडे ॥ १८ ॥

" मीच स्वस्वरुप आहें " हें अहंतेचे रुप समजावें. निराकार व भेदरहित स्वस्वरुपामध्यें ती आपोआप वेगळेपणानें नजरेस पडते.

If It says `Now, I am that swarup' then, that Reality has become a form with its ego and this `I am' within that formless swarup separates itself from the swarup and sets out on its own.

स्वयें मीच आहे ब्रह्म । ऐसा अहंतेचा भ्रम । ऐसिये सूक्ष्मीं सूक्ष्म । पाहातां दिसे ॥ १९ ॥

' स्वतः मीच ब्रह्म आहे हा अहंतेचा भ्रम आहे. अत्यंत सूक्ष्मांत जाऊन सूक्ष्मपणें पाहिलें म्हणजे माझें हें बोलणें बरोबर कळेल.

`I am myself brahman'. Such is the delusion of this ahamta/ego. Such understanding is that brahman appearing within that brahman.

कल्पना आकळी हेत । वस्तु कल्नातीत । म्हणौन नाकळे अंत । अनंताचा ॥ २० ॥

" मी देह आहे " ही जशी कल्पना तशीच " मी ब्रह्म आहे " हीं देखिल कल्पनाच आहे. कल्पनेंतून भावना निर्माण होते. सद्वस्तु किंवा स्वस्वरुप तर कल्पनेच्या पलीकडे आहे. कल्पना स्वरुपाला मर्यादा घालूं पाहातें. पण तें अनंत असल्यानें त्याला मर्यादा घालतां येत नाही. स्वरुपाचा अंत लागत नाही.

Imagination confines and then there is this original intent (ie. `I want to be'). But that Self is beyond imagination. Therefore, the end of that endless Self cannot be understood (due to imagination, one feels that this knowledge is endless; maharaj- put an end to that endless).

अन्वये आणी वीतरेक । हा शब्दभेद कोणीयेक । निशब्दाचा आंतरविवेक । शोधिला पाहिजे ॥ २१ ॥

अन्वय व व्यतिरेक हा एक शब्दांचा भेद आहे. सद्ववस्तु खरोखर निःशब्द आहे. म्हणून आपल्या अंतर्यामीं खोल शिरुन निःशब्द स्वस्वरुपाचा शोध घ्यावा.

Through the two systems of logic, anvaya and vyatirek, this `I am' can be proved 2 and then, with this vivek of `I am' that `wordless' swarup should be searched for. (When there is the knowledge of the waking state then, there is the waking state and when 2Sadachar Through the methods of anvaya (When there is a cause then only is there an effect) and vyatireka (When there is no cause then there is no affect), knowledge can be determined. there is no waking state, still knowledge is there. And when there is the knowledge of the dream state then, there is the dream and no waking state but still knowledge is there. And you know that you slept so, knowledge must have been there also within deep sleep. Knowledge is the commom cause of the resultant three states and without knowledge, these three states cannot be)

आधीं घेईजे वाच्यांश । मग वोळखिजे लक्ष्यांश । लक्ष्यांशीं पाहातां वाच्यांश । असेल कैंचा ॥ २२ ॥

स्वस्वरुपाचें वर्णन शब्दांनी केलेले असते. त्या शब्दांचा अर्थ प्रथम नीट समजून घ्यावा. शब्दांचा अर्थ बरोबर समजणें हा वाच्यार्थ होय. पण शब्द खुणेंने सद्वस्तुचें वर्णन करतात. म्हणून वाच्यार्थ ध्यानांत आल्यावर सद्वस्तुची बरोबर कल्पना करावी. हा लक्ष्यांश होय. एकदा लक्ष्यांश ध्यानांत आला म्हणजे वाचार्थाला महत्व उरत नाहीं. एकच लक्ष्यांश निरनिराळ्या शब्दांनीं सांगतां येणें शक्य असतें. या कारणानें शब्दांना लक्ष्यांशापेक्षां कमी महत्व असते.

This `word' meaning at the beginning should be searched out and then the implied meaning should be recognized (ie. first there is the `word' meaning of `You are That'/tat- twasmi. Therefore the `word' meaning of you should be understood. You discover that you cannot be this "I" that has attached itself to the body and that you are always there as knowledge. And that you are the base of the three worlds. Without you, they could not exist. Then there is the implied meaning of `you'. When this is investigated then, you discover that you are that purush, the witness or Knower of this known or `all'). And when there is the understanding of the implied meaning then, how can there be this `word' meaning? (Now when the `word' meaning of That is enquired into, one discovers it means that witnessing purush. Thus the implied meaning of `you' and the `word' meaning of That, are the same. But the implied meaning of That is that, the witnessing purush is, in truth, that One brahman without another. Thus you are that brahman)

सर्वब्रह्म आणी विमळब्रह्म । हा वाच्यांशाचा अनुक्रम । शोधितां लक्ष्यांशाचें वर्म । वाच्यांश नसे ॥ २३ ॥

सर्वब्रह्मवादी म्हणतो कीं, " सर्व दृश्य बाजूस केल्यावर जें शुद्ध व निर्मल ब्रह्मस्वरुप उरतें तें ब्रह्म होय. ब्रह्मवर्णानाचे हे दोन प्रकार केवळ शब्दापुरतें भिन्न आहेत. दोन्हींचा लक्ष्यांश जें परब्रह्म तें अगदी एकच एक आहे. तेथें भेद उरत नाहीं.

The `word' meaning is this `all' is brahman and the implied meaning is that pure brahman. These two understandings are to be studied in sequence. First the `word' meaning of that thoughtless swarup is to be understood and then, when the implied meaning (ie. that thoughtless pure brahman) is understood, the `word'/`all' will be destroyed.

सर्व विमळ दोनी पक्ष । वाच्यांशीं आटती प्रत्यक्ष । लक्ष्यांशीं लावितां लक्ष । पक्षपात घडे ॥ २४ ॥

सर्वब्रह्म व विमलब्रह्म हे दोन्ही पक्ष वाच्यांशामध्यें आटून जातात. शब्दांच्या पलीकडे त्यांचे क्षेत्र नाहीं. शब्दांच्या कक्षेंतच तें वावरतात. स्वस्वरुप हें दोन्हींचा लक्ष्यांश आहे. तिकडे लक्ष लागलें कीं दोन्हीं पक्ष गळून पडतात. त्यांचा नाश होतो.

This `all' and that pure brahman are the two sides of prakruti and purush (ie. this `all' is prakruti and the purush is that pure brahman). In this `word' meaning, sensory perception (ie. body consciousness) dries up and when this `I am' attention is planted within the implied meaning (I do not exist) then, this `I am' also disappears and the 3Note: in the Bible, John 1.1-5 it says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made, that was made. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not recognize it. pure brahman remains.

हें लक्ष्यांशें अनुभवणें । येथें नाहीं वाच्यांश बोलणें । मुख्य अनुभवाचे खुणे । वाचारंभ कैचा ॥ २५ ॥

लक्ष्यांशावर लक्ष केंद्रित करुनच स्वस्वरुपाचा अनुभव घ्यावा. त्या अनुभवामध्यें शब्द बोलण्याचे काम नाही. कारण अनुभव शब्दांच्या पलीकडे असतो. निःशब्द अवस्थेंत जाणें ही स्वरुपानुभवाची मुख्य खुण आहे.

When that thoughtless implied meaning has been gained on account of this `I am' experience then, this `word' meaning cannot to be `spoken'. When that Supreme under- standing is gained through this `experience' then, how can there be this original speech of para (`I am')?

परा पश्यंती मधेमां वैखरी । जेथें वोसरती च्यारी । तेथें शब्दकळाकुंसरी । कोण काज ॥ २६ ॥

परा, पश्यन्ति, मध्यमा व वैखरी या चारही वाणी स्वरुपानुभवाच्या ठिकाणीं ओस पडतात, शून्य होतात. म्हणून तेथें शब्दचातुर्याचें काम उरतनाहीं. तेथें शब्दांची कला लटकी पडते.

When there are the *para, pashyanti, madhyama and vaikari (ie. the articulated word) then, there is body consciousness and that One brahman fades away within these four speeches. But `there' in that brahman, who will have the skills of the articulated words or the `art' of this `word'? *(The world gets created by these four speeches; from the para of `I am', a thought starts to form; then it gets formed and one feels, "I must say this" and finally the thought is spoken out. This process of this original `word' becoming `many' words is the power of maya)

शब्द बोलतां सवेंच नासे । तेथें शाश्वतता कोठें असे । प्रत्यक्षास प्रमाण नसे । बरें पाहा ॥ २७ ॥

आपण शब्द उच्चारला कीं तो लगेच नाश पावतो. म्हणून शब्द अशाश्वत असतो. तें अशाश्वतपण आपण प्रत्यक्ष पाहतों. त्यास आणखी पुरावा लागतच नाहीं.

This `word' that is silently uttered will, of its own *accord, disappear. How can this therefore be that eternal brahman `there'? That brahman cannot be understood when you see this world through the sensory organs. But He can be understood by means of this pure sattwa. *(When you awake it arises and when you sleep is disappears. Of this process you have no control. But through vivek this `word' can be understood and by further vivek this `word' too, will fade away)

शब्द प्रत्यक्ष नासिवंत । म्हणोन घडे पक्षपात । सर्व विमळ ऐसा हेत । अनुभवीं नाहीं ॥ २८ ॥

शब्द नाशवंत आहे. म्हणून तत्त्वज्ञानामधील वाद अखेर गळून पडतात. सर्वब्रह्मवाद व विमलब्रह्मवाद असे पक्ष स्वरुपानुभवामध्यें शिल्लक उरत नाहीत.

This `word' and sensory perception are both destructible and therefore you have to have faith in that pure brahman. This `all' is the original inspiration and it is not that pure brahman that is within this `experience'.

ऐक अनुभवाचें लक्षण । अनुभव म्हणिजे अनन्य जाण । ऐक अनन्याचें लक्षण । ऐसें असे ॥ २९ ॥

अनुभवाचें लक्षण ऐकावें. अनुभव म्हणजे स्वरुपाशी अनन्यपण होय. आतां अनन्यपणाचें लक्षण सांगतों.

If you listen then, there is this `experience'.4 `Experience' means that *`no-otherness' is knowing (ie. and otherness has come). When you listen then, that attention of `no- otherness' becomes like this `experience' (The attention of `no-otherness' is the attention of the sadhu or Master. He uses this knowledge but never becomes this knowledge ie. implied meaning. The listening of the sadhak is not like that. His attention brings this `experience' and destroys body consciousness ie. `word' meaning). *(When this knowledge of `I am'/`another' merges in that Reality)

अनन्य म्हणिजे अन्य नसे । आत्मनिवेदन जैसें । संगभंगें असतचि असे । आत्मा आत्मपणें ॥ ३० ॥

अन्य नाहीं तें अनन्य. जसें कीं, आत्मनिवेदन. अहंतेनें अन्यपण किंवा निराळेंपण येतें. पण अहंता गेली कीं आत्मा एकच एक आत्मपणानें जसाच्या तसा असतो.

No-otherness means there is no other and such is the surrender to the atma. It means That which is, when every attachment has been destroyed. It is the atma, by being the atma.

आत्म्यास नाहीं आत्मपण । हेंचि निःसंगाचें लक्षण । हें वाक्यांशें बोलिलें जाण । कळवया कारणें ॥ ३१ ॥

" मी आत्मा आहे " अशी आत्मपणाची जाणीव आत्मस्वरुपास नसते. असें केवलस्वरुपानें असणें हेंच अत्यंत संगरहित असण्याची खूण आहे. हे शब्दांच्या पलीकडे आहे. पण कल्पनायेण्यासा्ठीं शब्दांनी वर्णन केलें.

To that atma, there is no sense of being the atma. That thoughtless atma uses this knowledge but has no attachment to this knowledge. That thoughtless atma knows due to this `word' and that thoughtless atma is also understood by means of this `speech'/`word' (ie. when this `I am' gets absorbed into that swarup then it is not dif- ferent from that swarup and this is `no-otherness'. And this `I am' is also the medium by which He creates and knows His creation).

येरवी लक्ष्यांश तो वाच्यांशें । सांगिजेल हें घडे कैसें । वाक्यविवरणें अपैसें । कळों लागे ॥ ३२ ॥

सद्वस्तुचे स्वरुप शब्दांनीं सांगतां येण्यासारखें नाही. परमतु संतवचनांवर चिंतन व मनन केलें तरच तें आकलन होऊं लागतें.

Otherwise, tell me, how will that thoughtless implied meaning ever be understood without first knowing this `word' meaning? By deep investigation of this `I am', That which is *beyond this space is understood. *(parabrahman)

करावें तत्वविवरण । शोधावें ब्रह्म निर्गुण । पाहावें आपणास आपण । म्हणिजे कळे ॥ ३३ ॥

या दृश्य विश्र्वांतील तत्त्वांचें विवरण करावें, निर्गुण ब्रह्माचा शोध घ्यावा, आपण कोण तें नीट पाहावें, म्हणजे स्वरुप कसें आहें तें कळूं लागतें.

This great element (ie. space/zero/sagun) should be investigated and with this you should search out that nirgun brahman. You should understand your Self and that is the nirgun understanding.

हें न बोलतांच विवरिजे । विवरोन विरोन राहिजे । मग अबोलणेंचि साजे । माहापुरुषीं ॥ ३४ ॥

स्वरुपाविषयीं बोलणें थांबवून त्याचें अखंड मनन करावें. तसें करतां करतां त्यामध्यें लीन होऊन जावें. अशा रीतीनें स्वस्वरुपाशीं अनन्य झाल्यावर माणूस महापुरुष बनतो. त्याला मौन शोभून दिसतें.

That thoughtless Self that cannot be `spoken' of should be carefully investigated. But first investigate this `speech' and then, this `speech' will dissolve and thoughtlessness will remain and you will come upon that `unspoken' and great purush.

शब्दचि निशब्द होती । श्रुति नेति नेति म्हणती । हें तों आलें आत्मप्रचिती । प्रत्यक्ष आतां ॥ ३५ ॥

स्वरुपानुभवामध्यें शब्द शब्दपणानें विरुन जातात. ही अवस्था श्रुति असें नाहीं असें नाहीं म्हणून म्हणते. ती असें कां म्हणते याचा प्रत्यय आतां स्वतःला येतो.

Then this `word' has become that `wordless' swarup. The shruti could only say, neti, neti/not this and not that, but then, within that atma `experience' there came the sensory perception of `many' objects.

प्रचित आलियां अनुमान । हा तों प्रत्यक्ष दुराभिमान । तरी आतां मी अज्ञान । मज कांहींच न कळे ॥ ३६ ॥

अशा प्रकारचा स्वरुपानुभव आल्यावर तर्काच्या व अनुमानाच्या मागें लागणें हें मीपणाचें लक्षण आहे. पण हा मी कसा आहे तो पहा. अनुमानाचा हट्ट धरणारा मी अज्ञाानी आहे. त्याला कांहींच कळत नाहीं.

When this `experience' brings conjecture then, that thoughtless Self is the experiences we get through our senses and that paramatma has the ego of a body and far away from its Self. Then there comes the understanding, "I am ignorant and I have not understood this `thing'."

मी लटिका माझें बोलणें लटिकें । मी लटिका माझें चालणें लटिकें । मी माझें अवघेंचि लटिकें । काल्पनिक ॥ ३७ ॥

हा मी मुळांतच खोटा असल्यानें त्याचें बोलणें चालणें खोटेच आहे. त्याचें माझेपण सर्व खोटे आहे. काल्पनिक आहे.

But even this `I' is false and my `speech' is false; `I' is false and my `action' is false. `I' and `mine' are both false and imagined by the mind only. Understand in this way.

मज मुळींच नाहीं ठाव । माझें बोलणें अवघेंचि वाव । हा प्रकृतीचा स्वभाव । प्रकृती लटिकी ॥ ३८ ॥

त्याला मुळीं स्थानच नाहीं. त्याचें सारें बोलणें अर्थहीन असतें. हा मी व त्याचे सारे व्यवहार प्रकृतीजन्य आहेत. आणि प्रकृति तर खोटी आहे.

`My' has no place at the root. Due to the worthless mind, my `speech' (`I am') has come about (ie. whatever comes out of the worthless will also be worthless). Then that thoughtless swarup is the nature of the prakruti; and this prakruti is false.

प्रकृति आणी पुरुष । यां दोहींस जेथें निरास । तेथें मीपण विशेष । हें केवि घडे ॥ ३९ ॥

स्वरुपानुभवामध्यें प्रकृति व पुरुष या दोघांचा निरास होतो. दोघांचा स्वरुपांत लय होतो. मग त्या ठिकाणीं प्रकृतींतून प्रगट होणार्‍या मीला वेगळेपनें अस्तित्व उरणें अगदीच अशक्य आहे.

When there is prakruti then, there is that purush. But when this `speech'/prakruti dissolves in that purush then, how can `I'-ness appear, for there is only thoughtlessness `there'?

जेथें सर्व हि अशेष जालें । तेथें विशेष कैंचे आलें । मी मौनी म्हणतां भंगलें । मौन्य जैसें ॥ ४० ॥

ज्या ठिकाणीं सर्व दृश्य निःशेष नाहींसें होतें त्या ठिकाणीं विशेषपणानें मी कसा उरणार ? मौन पाळणारा एक माणूस म्हणाल " मी मौनव्रत धरलें आहे. " त्याच्या या बोलण्यानेंच त्याचे मौन भंग पावतें.

If this `all' `here' does not remain then, how can this pure sattwa be `there'? (This `all' is pure sattwa, the beginning of maya) It would be like breaking that silence/mouna to say, "I am in silence/mouna."

आतां मौन्य न भंगावें । करुन कांहींच न करावें । असोन निशेष नसावें । विवेकबळें ॥ ४१ ॥

म्हणून स्वानुभव घ्यावा, त्यांत राहून मौन भंगूं देऊं नये. सर्व कांहीं करुन कांहीं केलें नाहीं असें निःसंग असावें. आणि दिसायल वेगळें दिसून अनुभवानें अगदी मुळींच निराळें नसावें.

Now, that silence should not be broken and then, even while *doing, this `thing' does not do (ie. for there is `no-otherness'). Therefore by constant vivek, you should be, by utterly not being at all. *(With this `thing' the Master stays in the world but doesn't take the touch) .