गुणरूप — समास 5: अनुमाननिर्शन

पिंडासारिखी ब्रह्मांडरचना । नये आमुच्या अनुमाना । प्रचित पाहातां नाना । मतें भांबावती ॥ १ ॥

ब्रह्मांडाची रचना पिंडासारखी आहे, हें कांहीं मनाला पटत नाही. प्रत्यक्ष अनुभव बघायला जावें तर अनेक मतांचा गोधळ आढळतो.

The construction of the pinda (ie. individual body) is like the construction of the brahmanda (ie. universal body). But this will not be understood by our conjecture and guesswork. When you understand this sagun `experience' then, this pinda and brahmanda are the same, otherwise there are just the `many' confusing opinions.

जें पिंडीं तेंचि ब्रह्मांडीं । ऐसी बोलावयाची प्रौढी । हें वचन घडीनें घडी । तत्वज्ञ बोलती ॥ २ ॥

" जें पिंडीं तें ब्रह्मांडी " असे बोलण्याची एक सवय झाली आहे. तत्त्वज्ञसुद्धं हें वाक्य पुन्हा पुन्हा सांगतात.

It is said that, whatever is in the pinda is also in the brahmanda. But this is just the loose talk that is made when this `speech' has not been understood. While the Knower of brahman speaks this divine `word' each and every moment.

पिंड ब्रह्मांड येक राहाटी । ऐसी लोकांची लोकधाटी । परी प्रत्ययाचे परीपाटीं । तगों न सके ॥ ३ ॥

पिंडाचा व्यवहार व ब्रह्मांडाचा व्यवहार दोन्ही एकसारखेंच आहेत, असें बोलण्याची लोकांना सवय झाली आहे. पण त्याचा खरेंपणा पाहण्याचा प्रयत्न केला तर तें टिकत नाहीं.

It is traditionally said that the pinda and brahmanda have been fashioned in the same manner. But when there is the establishment of that nirgun understanding then, how can either of them possibly remain?

स्थूळ सूक्ष्म कारण माहाकारण । हे च्यारी पिंडींचे देह जाण । विराट हिरण्य अव्याकृत मूळप्रकृते हे खूण । ब्रह्मांडींची ॥ ४ ॥

पिंडाचे चार देह आहेत. स्थूल, सूक्ष्म, कारण व महाकारण. ब्रह्मांडाचे चार देह विराट, हिरण्य, अव्याकृत व मूळप्रकृति.

Know that the gross, subtle, causal and great causal body, the four bodies of the pinda, are that thoughtless swarup. And know that the universal gross/virat, universal subtle/hiranya, non-manifest/avyakrut and the original illusion/mula maya, the four bodies of the brahmanda, are also that thoughtless understanding.

हे शास्त्राधाटी जाणावी । परी प्रचित कैसी आणावी । प्रचित पाहातां गथागोवी । होत आहे ॥ ५ ॥

शास्त्रांमध्यें अशाप्रकारचे वर्णन आहे. पण त्याचा अनुभव कसा घ्यावयाचा असा प्रश्र्ण आहे. तसा प्रयत्न केला तर शास्त्रांमधलें काल्पनिक वाटते.

If you know only the verses of the shasthras then, how can this sagun `experience' be brought? For then this `experience' has been caught in a confusing entanglement.

पिंडीं आहे अंतःकरण । तरी ब्रह्मांडी विष्णु जाण । पिंडीं बोलिजेतें मन । तरी ब्रह्मांडीं चंद्रमा ॥ ६ ॥

असें कां वाटतें पाहा. पिंडांत जसें अंतःकरण तसा ब्रह्मांडांत विष्णु होय. पिंडांत जसें मन तसा ब्रह्माडांत चंद्र होय.

According to some verses of the shasthras it is said that when in the pinda there is the antah-karana (ie. inner knowing faculty), then in the brahmanda, vishnu is knowing and when in the pinda there is the mind then, in the brahmanda there is the moon.

पिंडीं बुद्धी ऐसे बोलिजे । तरी ब्रह्मांडीं ब्रह्मा ऐसेम जाणिजे । पिंडीं चित्त ब्रह्मांडीं वोळखिजे । नारायेणु ॥ ७ ॥

पिंडांत जशी बुद्धि तसा ब्रह्माडांत ब्रह्मदेव. पिंडांत जसें चित्त तसा ब्रह्मांडांत नारायण.

When in the pinda there is the buddhi then, in the brahmanda there is brahma. And when in the pinda there is the chitta/thinking then, in the brahmanda there is nara- yana.

पिंडीं बोलिजे अहंकार । ब्रह्मांडीं रुद्र हा निर्धर । ऐसा बोलिला विचार । शास्त्रांतरीं ॥ ८ ॥

पिंडांत जसा अहंकार तसा ब्रह्माडांत निःसंशयपणें रुद्र. शास्त्रांमध्यें हें असें वर्णन आढळते.

If in the pinda there is the ahamkar/ego then, in the brahmanda, that supportless Reality, gets called rudra. But if this is to be believed then, this `speech' of `I am' and that thoughtless Self (I do not exist) has been divided up by the scriptures/shasthras. (Therefore leave aside the divisions of the pinda and brahmanda as stated in the verses of the scriptures and understand this `speech' within the scriptures and then be that thoughtless Self)

तरी कोण विष्णूचें अंतःकर्ण । चंद्राचें कैसें मन । ब्रह्मयाचें बुद्धिलक्षण । मज निरोपावें ॥ ९ ॥

यावर पुढील शंका काढल्या. विष्णूचें अंतःकरण कोणतें ? चंद्राचे मन कसे आहे? ब्रह्मदेवाच्या बुद्धीचें लक्षण काय ? नारायनाचें चित्त कसें असतें ? रुद्राचा अहंकार कश्या स्वरुपाचा असतो? या सर्व प्रश्र्नांची उत्तरें स्वामीनीं विचारपूर्वक व निश्र्चयात्मक द्यावी.

Tell me, how is the antah-karana and vishnu the same? And how is the moon, the mind? And how is the attention of the buddhi, lord brahma?

नारायेणाचें कैसें चित्त । रुद्रअहंकाराचा हेत । हा विचार पाहोन नेमस्त । मज निरोपावा ॥ १० ॥

यावर पुढील शंका काढल्या. विष्णूचें अंतःकरण कोणतें ? चंद्राचे मन कसे आहे? ब्रह्मदेवाच्या बुद्धीचें लक्षण काय ? नारायनाचें चित्त कसें असतें ? रुद्राचा अहंकार कश्या स्वरुपाचा असतो? या सर्व प्रश्र्नांची उत्तरें स्वामीनीं विचारपूर्वक व निश्र्चयात्मक द्यावी.

And tell me, how can the chitta be the same as narayana and how can rudra have the wish for an ahamkar/ ego? Therefore thoughtlessness should be clearly understood.

प्रचितनिश्र्चयापुढें अनुमान । जैसें सिंहापुढें आलें स्वान । खर्‍यापुढें खोटे प्रमाण । होईल कैसें ॥ ११ ॥

सिंहासमोर कुत्र्याला कांहींच किंमत नसते. त्याचप्रमाणें प्रत्यक्ष अनुभवांतून निर्माण होणार्‍या निश्र्चयात्मक ज्ञानापुढें नुसत्या अनुमानाची किंमत अगदी कमी असते. खर्‍या पुढें खोट्याला कोणीही प्रमाण मानणार नाहीं.

Conjecture before the conviction of this `experience' is like a dog in front of a lion. How will the untrue remain when it gets placed before the Truth?

परी यास पारखी पाहिजे । पारखीनें निश्र्चय लाहिजे । परीक्षा नस्तां राहिजे । अनुमानसंशईं ॥ १२ ॥

पण प्रचीतीचें महत्व ध्यानांत येण्यासाठीं खरा परीक्षक हवा. नीट परीक्षा केली म्हणजें खरें काय आहे याचा निश्र्चय करता येतो. तसें केलें नाहींतर माणुस अनुमानाच्या संशयजालामध्यें गुंतुन राहतो.

But an astute examiner of this `experience' is required. Due to an astute examiner, this conviction of `I am' gets imbibed. Really a proper examiner will not let these doubts and conjectures remain.

विश्र्णु चंद्र आणी ब्रह्मा । नारायेण आणी रुद्रनामा । यां पाचांचीं अंतःकर्णपंचकें आम्हा । स्वामी निरोपावीं ॥ १३ ॥

विष्णु, चंद्र, ब्रह्मदेव, नारायण आणि रुद्र या पांच देवतांची जीं पांच अंतःकरणें आहेत ती स्वामीनीं आम्हांला समजवून सांगावी.

The listener said, "Then swami should explain how vishnu, the moon, brahma, narayana and the one called rudra (ie. the five parts of the antah-karana of brahmanda); and the five parts of our inner faculty of knowing/antah-karana are this `speech'?"

येथें प्रचित हें प्रमाण । नलगे शास्त्राचा अनुमान । अथवा शास्त्रीं तरी पाहोन । प्रत्ययो आणावा ॥ १४ ॥

या विषयामध्यें प्रत्यक्ष अनुभवाचा पुरावा पाहिजे. शास्त्रांनी काढलेल्या अनुमानांना येथें महत्व नाहीं. किंवा शास्त्रांनी सांगितलेलें विचारांत घ्यावयाचे असेल तर तें प्रत्यक्ष अनुभवानें सिद्ध झालें पाहिजें.

The Master said. This sagun `experience' and that thoughtless Self do not require the conjecture of the shasthras. If the meaning contained within these verses of the shasthras is understood then, this will bring that thoughtless understanding.

प्रचितीवीण जें बोलणें । तें अवघेंचि कंटाळवाणें । तोंड पसरुन जैसें सुणें । रडोन गेलें ॥ १५ ॥

स्वतः अनुभव घेतल्यावांचून नुसतें सिद्धांत बोलत सुटणे म्हणजे शब्दज्ञान त्याचा कंटााळा येतो. तोंडाचा आ वासून एखादें कुत्रे रडलें तर तें जसें ऐकवत नाहीं तसा कोरड्या शब्दज्ञानाचा प्रकार होतो.

Any talk that you make without this `experience' is made by a restless and bored mind. And whatever comes out of that mouth then, is no better than the barks of a dog.

तेथें काये हो ऐकावें । आणी काये शोधून पाहावें । जेथें प्रत्ययाच्या नावें । सुन्याकार ॥ १६ ॥

जें बोलणें अनुभवानें शून्य असते, तें ऐकण्यांत कांहीं अर्थ नाहीं. तसेंच त्यावर मनन करुनही निश्र्चित असें ज्ञान हातीं लागत नाहीं.

`There' in brahman what need is there to listen even (even knowing or listening is not required)? And `there' what needs to be searched for and understood? It is `here' in maya, where there is this *zero of `I am' that listening is required and then there can be the search for that nirgun. *(You say `nothing is there' but you are there).

आवघें आंधळेचि मिळाले । तेथें डोळसाचें काय चाले । अनुभवाचे नेत्र गेले । तेथें अंधकार ॥ १७ ॥

ज्या घोळक्यामध्यें सगळेच आंधळें असतात, तेथें एकट्या डोळस माणसाचें कोणी ऐकत नाहीं. त्याचप्रमाणें जेथें स्वानुभवाचे नेत्र नाहींत तेथें स्वरुपाबद्दल सगळा अंधःकारच आढळून येतो.

This restless mind that sees so many forms has made you blind. How can your eyes of flesh work `there'? When this vision of knowledge is destroyed then, `there' is only the darkness of ignorance.

नाहीं दुग्ध नाहीं पाणी । केली वीष्ठेची सारणी । तेथें निवडायाचे धनी । तें एक डोंबकावळे ॥ १८ ॥

देहबुद्धीची माणसें डोमकावळ्यासारखी असतात. ते दृश्याची घाण चिवडत बसतात. घाणीमधील निवडानिवड करण्यांत डोमकावळे प्रवीण असतात.

Then there is no milk (ie. nirgun) and there is no water (ie. sagun; ref. the royal swan who knows how to separate the two) and only a pile of excrement (maharaj- this body is a shit factory). And if one has a longing to pick through this then, that One `there' is no better than the crow (due to desires, mind makes the pure and true brahman into the false names and forms of maya).

आपुले इच्छेनें बोलिलें । पिंडाऐसें ब्रह्मांड कल्पिलें । परी तें प्रचितीस आलें । कोण्या प्रकारें ॥ १९ ॥

पिंडाप्रमाणें ब्रह्मांडाची रचना असते अशी कल्पना करुन ती आपल्या मनास येईल तशी बोलून दाखवायची, अशी पद्धत दिसते. आपण बोलतों त्यास पुरावा कोणता आहे आणि त्याचा अनुभव कसा घ्यावयाचा हें कोणी सांगत नाहीं.

Due to your `wish' (I want to be) there is this `speech' (knowing) and then the imagined brahmanda and pinda are the same. But how can that formless, thoughtless Self be this sagun form even?

म्हणोन हा अवघाच अनुमान । अवघें कल्पनेचें रान । भलीं न घ्यावें आडरान । तश्करीं घ्यावें ॥ २० ॥

म्हणून " पिंडी तें ब्रह्मांडी " हा सगळा अनुमानाचा खेळ आहे. हें कल्पनेचें जंगल आहे. चांगल्या माणसानें यांत शिरु नये. चोरांनी शिरावें.

Understand that it is the thoughtless Self that has become the restless mind that is full of conjecture; it is that thoughtless Self that has become this wild forest of imagination. The wise should therefore not go wandering through this forest, for they will surely be robbed.

कल्पून निर्मिले मंत्र । देव ते कल्पनामात्र । देव नाहीं स्वतंत्र । मंत्राधेन ॥ २१ ॥

कोणाच्या तरी मनांत कल्पना येते. तो मंत्र रचतो. त्या मंत्राची देवता कल्पनेंतूनच निर्माण होते. त्यामंत्रानें त्या देवतेची प्राणप्रतिष्ठा करतात. याचा अर्थ असा देवता स्वतंत्र नसतात, त्या मंत्राधीन असतात.

It was imagination that created the mantras and then, these gods were imagined. These gods are not that independent God, for are dependent on the imagined mantras.

येथें न बोलतां जाणावें । बोलणें विवेका आणावें । आंधळें पाउलीं वोळखावें । विचक्षणें ॥ २२ ॥

या गोष्टी स्पष्टपणें बोलण्याच्या नसतात. मनांतल्या मनांत त्या ओळखून तें प्रमाण मानावें शास्त्रें किंवा विद्वान यांचे बोलणें खरेंखोटें निवडून घ्यावें. चालण्यावरुन माणूस आंधळा आहे हें शहाणी माणसें ओळखतात. त्याचप्रमाणें बोलनें अनुभवाचे आहें किंवा नाहीं हें ओळखून तें प्रमाण मानावें.

`Here' the end of this `speech' should be known and by means of vivek, this `speech' should be brought `there'. Such vivek can be compared to a blind man who by very keen listening, can recognize someone merely by their footsteps (`here' these eyes of flesh are not required; vivek is required)

जयास जैसें भासलें । तेणें तैसे कवित्व केलें । परी हें पाहिजे निवडिलें । प्रचितीनें ॥ २३ ॥

ज्या माणसाला जसा भास होतो तसें तो काव्यरुपानें देवता वर्णन करतो किंवा वस्तुवर्णन करतो. पण त्याचे बोलणें खरें आहे कां नाहीं हें अनुभवानें ठरविलें पाहिजे.

Let whatever appearance that has to come to mula maya, come and then, it will just be like a beautiful poem* composed by that Reality (Whatever is going to come, will come; so let it come without attraction or rejection. And whatever has to go, will go; so let it go without fear or care). Then by remaining in this `experience' (ie. poem), thoughtlessness should be chosen. *(See 14.3 The art of poetry. There is the compositions or poems made in this world of many forms. There can be this continuous composition or poem that is this world beyond/sagun. Or you can be the poet, that nirgun Self)

ब्रह्मयानें सकळ निर्मिलें । ब्रह्मयास कोणें निर्माण केलें । विष्णूनें विश्व पाळिलें । विष्णूस पाळिता कवणु ॥ २४ ॥

ब्रह्मदेवानें हे सारे विश्र्व निर्माण केलें असें म्हटलें तर त्या ब्रह्मदेवाला कोणी निर्माण केलें हा प्रश्र्न मनांत येतो. विष्णु विश्वाचा सांभाळ करतो ासें म्हटलें तर विष्णुचा सांभाळ कोण करतो हा प्रश्र्न येतो.

If everything was created by brahma then, who has created brahma? If the universe is protected by vishnu, then who protects vishnu?

रुद्र विश्वसंव्हारकर्ता । परी कोण रुद्रास संव्हारिता । कोण काळाचा नियंता । कळला पाहिजे ॥ २५ ॥

रुद्र विश्वाचा संहार करतो असें म्हतलें तर रुद्राचा संहार कोण करतो हा प्रश्न येतो. काळ सगळ्याचें नियमन करतो असें म्हतले तर त्या काळाचा नियंता कोण असा प्रश्ण येतो.

If rudra destroys the universe then, who will destroy rudra? Therefore that One who is the ruler of death/rudra should be understood.

याचा कळेना विचार । तों अवघा अंधकार । म्हणोनियां सारासार । विचार करणें ॥ २६ ॥

या प्रश्नांची उत्तरें देता येत नाहीत. तोपर्यंत संपूर्ण अज्ञानाचा अंधार आहे हें ओळखून राहावें. या कारणासाठीं आत्मानात्मा विचार करावा लागतो.

If the thoughtlessness (nirgun) of this `speech' (sagun) is not understood then, there comes only the darkness of worldly life. Therefore, that thoughtless essence should be formed.

ब्रह्मांड स्वभावेंचि जालें । परंतु हें पिंडाकार कल्पिलें । कल्पिलें परी प्रत्यया आलें । नाहीं कदा ॥ २७ ॥

ब्रह्मांड आपोआप घडलेले आहे. परंतु त्याची रचना पिंडासारखी आहे अशी कल्पना केली खरी पण ती खरी असल्याचा अनुभव कधींच कोणाला आला नाहीं.

When the brahmanda spontaneously appeared then, that thoughtless Self became an imagined `dweller of the pinda' (ie. and accepted a body consciousness). And such imagining can never bring that nirgun understanding.

पाहातां ब्रह्मांडाची प्रचिती । कित्येक संशय उठती । हें कल्पनिक श्रोतीं । नेमस्त जाणावें ॥ २८ ॥

खरेंच ब्रह्मांड हें पिंडासारखें आहे कां, याचा शोध घेऊ लागल्यास कितीतरी संशय निर्माण होतात. म्हणून ही केवळ कल्पना आहे असें श्रोत्यांनी ेनिश्र्चितपनें समजावें.

And if you understand that this whole brahmanda/universe is within the `all'/knowledge then, that One within the `many' has arisen as this `I am' feeling. Then that thoughtless One, who is beyond imagination, is imagined as a listener. This should be clearly understood (ie. this `I am' feeling is also not the Truth).

पिंडासारिखी ब्रह्मांडरचना । कोण आणितो अनुमाना । ब्रह्मांडीं पदार्थ नाना । ते पिंडीं कैंचे ॥ २९ ॥

ब्रह्मांडाची रचना पिंडासारखी आहे असें म्हणणारे त्यावर संपूर्ण विचार करत नाहींत. कारण ब्रह्मांडामध्यें असंख्य पदार्थ आहेत. तें पिंडामध्यें असणें शक्य नाही.

How can anyone conclude that this constructed pinda is like this constructed brahmanda? How can these `many' objects that are in the brahmanda also in the pinda?

औटकोटी भुतावळी । औटकोटी तीर्थावळी औटकोटी मंत्रावळी । पिंडीं कोठें ॥ ३० ॥

ब्रह्मांडामध्यें साडेतीन कोटी भूतें आहेत, साडेतीन कोटी तीर्थें आहेत, साडेतीन कोटी मंत्र आहेत हें सगळें पिंडांत असणें शक्य नाहीं.

It is said in the scriptures that there are three and a half *koti beings in this world; three and a half koti places of pilgrimage and three and a half koti mantras. Where are they in the pinda? *(koti means ten million. But koti also means that most excellent reply and in vedanta that is then pure sattwa guna or knowing. It is the base upon which this world appears. This three and a half koti represents the this `word' or aum; these are the three states of waking/raja, dream/sattwa, sleep/tama and the half is this state of knowing or pure sattwa that is represented by the point above the aum symbol. Therefore contained within this `word' aum or `speech' there is everything, including the `many' beings, pilgrimage places and mantras. Understand in this way. If you take koti as ten million then, how can these be in the pinda?

तेतीस कोटी सुरवर । अठ्यांसि सहस्त्र ऋषेश्र्वर । नवकोटी कात्यायेणीचा विचार । पिंडीं कोठें ॥ ३१ ॥

ब्रह्मांडामध्यें तेहतीस कोटी देव आहेत, अठ्ठ्याऐंशी हजार ऋषीश्र्वर आहेत, नऊ कोटी कात्यायनी देवता आहेत, हे सगळे पिंडांत असणें शक्य नाही.

It is said that there are thirty-three koti gods in the brahmanda. It is said that are eighty-eight thousand rishi Lords. And it is said that there are nine koti katyayana. Where are these in the pinda? (The real meaning is that within the twenty-five divisions of the five subtle elements, the three gunas and this knowing guna there are the `many' gods. And within that Lord ie. purush, and this knowing, there are the `many' jivas formed from the eighty-four principles and the four different forms of birth. And from within the five elements and four speeches and this pure sattwa, there comes the beating and killing in this world of the `many'. Creation can be divided up in this way, but then how will this `knowing' or `most excellent reply' be understood?)

च्यामुंडा छपन्न कोटी । कित्येक जीव कोट्यानुकोटी । चौर्‍यासी लक्ष योनींची दाटी । पिंडी कोठें ॥ ३२ ॥

ब्रह्मांडामध्यें छप्पन कोटी चामुंडा आहेत. कोट्यावधि जीव आहेत. चौर्‍याऐंशी लाख योनीमधील प्राण्यांची गर्दी आहे. हें सगळें पिंडांत असणें शक्य नाहीं.

It is said there are fifty-six koti goddesses/chamundas and that One within the `many' has become the billions upon billions of different creatures in the brahmanda; it is said there are 8.4 laksha types of species in the brahmanda. Where are these in the pinda? (The inner meaning is that, within the twenty-five subtle and gross principles, the four bodies, knowledge and ignorance, and the knowing of pure sattwa there are the chamundas ie. those confined to a skin or body. Then that One within the `many' has become the countless jivas due to the mixing of pure knowledge and ignorance. And there are the jivas due to placing ones attention ie. laksha, on these eighty-four principles that make up a gross body; see. 17.8,9)

ब्रह्मांडीं पदार्थ निर्माण जाले । पृथकाकारें वेगळाले । तेहि तितुके निरोपिले । पाहिजेत पिंडीं ॥ ३३ ॥

वेगवेगळ्या आकाराचे वेगवेगळे कितीतरी पदार्थ ब्रह्मांडांत निर्माण झालेले आहेत. ते सगळे पिंडामध्यें आहेत असे दाखवता येणें शक्य नाहीं.

Within the brahmanda there is this created `object' and the `many' different forms separate from this (depending on where you place your attention; if you look out, you will see the `many' and if you look in, you will perceive this one moving form). And it should also be explained how that thoughtless Reality is within the pinda?

जितुक्या औषधी तितुकीं फळे । नाना प्रकारीं रसाळें । नाना बीजें धान्यें सकळें । पिंडीं निरोपावीं ॥ ३४ ॥

असंख्य वनस्पति आहेत. तसेंच असंख्य रसाळ फळें आहेत. नाना प्राकारची बीजें, नाना प्रकारची धान्यें आहेत. ही सगळी पिंडामध्यें दाखविता येणें शक्य नाही.

It all depends upon which remedy you use. If you use the `many' medicines (ie. opinions and conjectures) then, you will remain in body consciousness. And if, `I am He' is used then, you will be He. Within these bitter ways of the `many' there is this sweet juice of `I am'. Therefore the `many' seeds (ie. concepts) within the pinda should be understand by this `all' (put away the names and forms ie. the `many' seeds of this gross creation, and rest in this knowing and the conviction, `I am He'. This is the proper medicine).

हें सांगतां पुरवेना । तरी उगैंचि बोलावेना । बोलिलें न येतां अनुमाना । लाजिरवाणें ॥ ३५ ॥

अशा रीतीनें हें सांगतां सांगतां संपणार नाहीं. म्हणून पिंडब्रह्मांडाची रचना सारखी आहे असें बोलू नये. जें बोलतो तें तर्कानें खरें ठरणार नसेल तर लाजिरवाणेंच समजावें.

If that thoughtless Self had not been buried beneath these imaginings then, that still and silent brahman would have no need to `speak' this remedy of `I am'. But if there is any conjecture whatsoever then, that should be put to shame by this `speech'.

तरी हें निरोपिलें नवचे । फुकट बोलतां काय वेचे । याकारणें अनुमानाचें । कार्य नाहीं ॥ ३६ ॥

पिंड ब्रह्मांड यांची रचना सारखी हें दाखविता येत नसतां फुकट बोलायला काय लागतें ? म्हणून या बाबतींत उगीच कल्पना करण्यांत अर्थ नाही.

Even if that thoughtless discourse has not come, why should this `speech' select these worthless conjectures? By means of this `speech', you come to understand that, `He does everything' and then there are not all these actions formed from conjecture. (There is just this one moving action or chaitanya when there is this thought, `I am' and there is not the worthless chatter within like, "I did this and I didn't do that" etc.etc.).

पांच भूतें ते ब्रह्मांडी । आणि पांचचि वर्तती पिंडीं । याची पाहावी रोकडी । प्रचीत आतां ॥ ३७ ॥

हें सारें विश्व पांच महाभूतांचे बनलेलें आहे. पिंडदेखील त्याच महाभूतांचा बनलेला आहे. याचा साक्षात रोकडा अनुभव कोणीही घ्यावा.

There is that Reality and the five great elements within this brahmanda and when there is this mixing of these five elements (ie. objectivity) then, that One stays in the pinda. Therefore now this ever present sagun `experience' should be known

पांचा भूतांचें ब्रह्मांड । आणी पंचभूतिक हें पिंड । यावेगळें तें उदंड । अनुमानज्ञान ॥ ३८ ॥

विश्व असें पंचभूतांचें विणलेले आहे, हा प्रत्यक्ष अनुभव आहे. या व्यतिरिक्त आणखी बोलणें हें भरमसाट कल्पनेचे खूळ आहे असें समजावें.

There is that thoughtless swarup and this brahmanda made of the five elements and the pinda made of the five elements. But without this `speech', that vast paramatma becomes merely this guesswork and conjecture.

जितुकें अनुमानाचें बोलणें । तितुकें वमनप्रायें त्यागणें । निश्र्चयात्मक तेंचि बोलणें । प्रत्ययाचें ॥ ३९ ॥

जें अनुमानाचें बोलणें तें ओकारीप्रमाणें बाजूस सारावें. अनुभवाचें बोलणें नेहमी निश्चयात्मक असते.

Whatever conjecture has appeared upon this `speech', this only is to be given up as if it was vomit. Then definitely there will be this `speech' of that nirgun understanding.

जें चि पिंडीं तेंचि ब्रह्मांडीं । प्रचित नाहीं कीं रोकडी । पंचभूतांची तांतडी । दोहीकडे ॥ ४० ॥

जें पिंडीं आहे तेंच ब्रह्मांडी आहे या वचनाचा अनुभव असा रोकडा घेतां येतो. पिंडांत काय किंवा ब्रह्मांडांत काय दोहीकडें पंचभूतांची गडबड चालू आहे.

Whatever is in the pinda is in the brahmanda. But how can this be perceived without the sagun `experience'? For without this `experience', there are these *two bodies and the hurriedness of the five elements (names and forms and conjectures). *(The individual body/pinda and this universal body/brahmanda)

म्हणोनि देहींचे थानमान । हा तों अवघाचि अनुमान । आतां येक समाधान । मुख्य तें कैसें ॥ ४१ ॥

म्हणून ब्रह्मांडामधील स्थानें आणि इतर गोष्टी पिंडामध्यें म्हणणे म्हणजे देहामध्ये पाहण्याचा प्रयत्न करणें हा केवळ कल्पनेचा खेळ आहे. तो खरा नाही> खरें समाधान कसें असतें त्याचा विचार आतां करुं.

Therefore when you give respect to these two bodies of pinda and brahmanda, then thoughtlessness becomes all these conjectures and then, how can this `now' be that samadhan of the One? .