Garuda Purana — Brahma Khanda — Chapter 3
GaP 3 3.1
श्रीगरुडमहापुराणम्- ३ श्रीकृष्ण उवाच । बभूवेच्छा मम देवस्य विष्णोः स्रष्टुं सृज्यान्मोक्षयोग्यांश्च मोक्तुम् । इच्छाशक्तिः सर्वदैवास्ति विष्णोस्तथापि तद्व्याहरणं च लौकिकम्
śrīgaruḍamahāpurāṇam- 3 śrīkṛṣṇa uvāca / babhūvecchā mama devasya viṣṇoḥ sraṣṭuṃ sṛjyānmokṣayogyāṃśca moktum / icchāśaktiḥ sarvadaivāsti viṣṇostathāpi tadvyāharaṇaṃ ca laukikam
The Great Garuḍa Purāṇa, (Book) 3. Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: There arose in me, the god Viṣṇu, the wish to create what is to be created and to liberate those fit for liberation. The power of will always belongs to Viṣṇu; nevertheless the speaking of it thus is (a matter of) ordinary usage.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.2
तदा हरिर्जगृहे लौकिकं च तमः पानं तेन रूपेण चक्रे । तद्रूपमाहुः प्राकृतं वै तदज्ञा ह्यन्धं तमः प्रविशन्त्येव सर्वे
tadā harirjagṛhe laukikaṃ ca tamaḥ pānaṃ tena rūpeṇa cakre / tadrūpamāhuḥ prākṛtaṃ vai tadajñā hyandhaṃ tamaḥ praviśantyeva sarve
Then Hari took up, in the ordinary way, darkness as a drink, and did so in that form. That form they call material indeed; the ignorant about it all enter blind darkness.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.3
अवतारा महाविष्णोः सर्वे पूर्णाः प्रकीर्तिताः । पूर्णं च तत्परं रूपं पूर्णात्पूर्णाः समुद्गताः
avatārā mahāviṣṇoḥ sarve pūrṇāḥ prakīrtitāḥ / pūrṇaṃ ca tatparaṃ rūpaṃ pūrṇātpūrṇāḥ samudgatāḥ
All the incarnations of the great Viṣṇu are declared to be full; and that supreme form is full — from the full the full ones have come forth.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.4
परावरत्वं तेषां तु व्यक्तिमात्रविशेषतः । न देशकालसामर्थ्यात्पारावर्यं कथञ्चन
parāvaratvaṃ teṣāṃ tu vyaktimātraviśeṣataḥ / na deśakālasāmarthyātpārāvaryaṃ kathañcana
Their being higher and lower is only by the distinction of manifestation; there is in no way any superiority or inferiority arising from place, time, or capacity.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.5
पूर्वरूपं च पूर्णं च पूर्णं पदवितारगम्? । रूपं तदात्मन्यादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते
pūrvarūpaṃ ca pūrṇaṃ ca pūrṇaṃ padavitāragam? / rūpaṃ tadātmanyādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate
The prior form is full, and full is (the form) that has gone beyond position(?); having taken that form into himself, the full alone remains.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.6
लौकिकव्यवहारोयं भूभारक्षपणादिकः । तस्य दृर्ष्टि विना नान्यो लयः कृष्णादिना क्वचित्
laukikavyavahāroyaṃ bhūbhārakṣapaṇādikaḥ / tasya dṛrṣṭi vinā nānyo layaḥ kṛṣṇādinā kvacit
This is ordinary worldly activity — the removing of the earth's burden and so on. Apart from the vanishing of that (activity) from sight, there is nowhere any (real) dissolution of Kṛṣṇa and the rest.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.7
तत्त्वे पीडा न कर्तव्या तया दुः खानि विन्दति । अत्यन्तपीडनात्तस्य रोगस्तस्य न संशयः
tattve pīḍā na kartavyā tayā duḥ khāni vindati / atyantapīḍanāttasya rogastasya na saṃśayaḥ
No pressing is to be done concerning the (established) truth; by it one meets with sufferings. From excessive pressing there arises disease for him — of this there is no doubt.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.8
ज्ञातव्यांशे तु पीडा तु कर्तव्या गुरुणा सह । तमन्तेवासिनं चाहुः स एव चु गुरुः स्मृतः
jñātavyāṃśe tu pīḍā tu kartavyā guruṇā saha / tamantevāsinaṃ cāhuḥ sa eva cu guruḥ smṛtaḥ
But in the part that is to be learned, pressing (with questions) should be done together with the teacher; and him they call a resident pupil, and he alone is remembered as the guru.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.9
ये कुर्वन्ति हरेस्तत्त्वविचारं तु परस्परम् । तावेव गुरुशिष्यौ तु विनतानन्दसंयुत
ye kurvanti harestattvavicāraṃ tu parasparam / tāveva guruśiṣyau tu vinatānandasaṃyuta
Those two who carry on with each other an inquiry into the truth of Hari — just they are guru and pupil, O son of Vinatā, endowed with joy.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.10
गुरुणापि समं हास्यं कर्तव्यं कुटिलं विना । हर्षामर्षयुतः शिष्यो गुरुः कौटिल्यसंयुतः
guruṇāpi samaṃ hāsyaṃ kartavyaṃ kuṭilaṃ vinā / harṣāmarṣayutaḥ śiṣyo guruḥ kauṭilyasaṃyutaḥ
Even with the teacher, laughter should be shared, but without crookedness. A pupil who is filled with elation and indignation, and a teacher who is joined with crookedness —
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.11
उभौ तौ निरयं यातो यावदाचन्द्रतारकम् । साक्षाद्धरिः पुरुषः पिङ्गलाक्षः स्वमायायां गुणमय्यां महात्मा । स्वपौरुषेणैव सुमङ्गलेन अधात्तु वीर्यं भगवान्वीर्यवांश्च
ubhau tau nirayaṃ yāto yāvadācandratārakam / sākṣāddhariḥ puruṣaḥ piṅgalākṣaḥ svamāyāyāṃ guṇamayyāṃ mahātmā / svapauruṣeṇaiva sumaṅgalena adhāttu vīryaṃ bhagavānvīryavāṃśca
both of these go to hell for as long as the moon and stars endure. Hari himself, the tawny-eyed Person, the great Self, deposited his potency in his own māyā composed of the qualities, by his own most auspicious manhood — the Lord, possessed of potency.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.12
गरुड उवाच । वीर्यस्वरूपं ब्रूहि मे वासुदेव वीर्ये त्वदीये संशयो मे विभाति । किं वीर्यमीशस्य स्वरूपभूतं किं वा विभिन्नं वद साधु वेत्सि
garuḍa uvāca / vīryasvarūpaṃ brūhi me vāsudeva vīrye tvadīye saṃśayo me vibhāti / kiṃ vīryamīśasya svarūpabhūtaṃ kiṃ vā vibhinnaṃ vada sādhu vetsi
Garuḍa said: Tell me the nature of that potency, Vāsudeva; a doubt about your potency appears in me. Is the potency of the Lord identical with his own essential form, or is it something distinct? Speak — you know it well.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.13
श्रीकृष्ण उवाच । यद्वीर्यमाधत्त हरिः स्वयं प्रभुर्मायाभिधायां विनतातनूज । तद्वीर्यमाहुर्नृहरेः स्वरूपं विपश्चितो निश्चिततत्त्वदर्शिनः
śrīkṛṣṇa uvāca / yadvīryamādhatta hariḥ svayaṃ prabhurmāyābhidhāyāṃ vinatātanūja / tadvīryamāhurnṛhareḥ svarūpaṃ vipaścito niścitatattvadarśinaḥ
Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: The potency which Hari, the Lord himself, deposited in her who is called Māyā, O son of Vinatā — that potency the wise, who see the truth with certainty, declare to be the very own form of the Man-lion (Hari).
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.14
भिन्नं तदाहुः प्राकृतमेव चाहुः स्वनाभिपद्मादिकवच्च बोध्यम् । नैतावता ज्ञानरूपस्य विष्णोर्न वीर्यहानिरिति चिन्तनीयम्
bhinnaṃ tadāhuḥ prākṛtameva cāhuḥ svanābhipadmādikavacca bodhyam / naitāvatā jñānarūpasya viṣṇorna vīryahāniriti cintanīyam
(Others) call it distinct, and they call it simply material, and it is to be understood as being like the lotus from his own navel and the rest; and it should not be thought that on this account there is any loss of potency for Viṣṇu, whose nature is knowledge.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.15
वीर्यस्वरूपी भगवान्वा सुदेवः सर्वत्र देशेपि च सर्वकाले । सर्वार्थवान्यदि न स्यात्खगेन्द्र तर्हीश्वरः पुरुषो नैव स स्यात्
vīryasvarūpī bhagavānvā sudevaḥ sarvatra deśepi ca sarvakāle / sarvārthavānyadi na syātkhagendra tarhīśvaraḥ puruṣo naiva sa syāt
The Lord Vāsudeva has potency for his very nature; if in every place and at every time he were not possessed of every object of desire, O king of birds, then he would not be the Lord, the Person, at all.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.18
अचिन्त्यवीर्यैश्चिन्त्यवीर्यैर्द्विरूपः स्त्रीरूपमेकं पुरुषं तथा परम् । उभे रूपे वीर्यवती खगेन्द्र तयोरभेदश्चिन्तनीयो हि सम्यकू ॥ गर्प्_३,३।१६ ॥ स्त्रीरूपवान्यदि न स्यात्खर्गेद्रस्त्रीणां कथं प्रतिबिंबत्वमेव ॥ गर्प्_३,३।१७ ॥ स्त्रीरूपमस्माद्ब्रह्मजं (द्वास्तवं) चिन्तनीयं स्वरूपमेतन्नान्यथा चिन्तनीयम् । स्त्रीरूपवन्नैव विचिन्तनीयं नपुंसकं त्बस्य जन्यं हि विद्धि
acintyavīryaiścintyavīryairdvirūpaḥ strīrūpamekaṃ puruṣaṃ tathā param / ubhe rūpe vīryavatī khagendra tayorabhedaścintanīyo hi samyakū // garp_3,3.16 // strīrūpavānyadi na syātkhargedrastrīṇāṃ kathaṃ pratibiṃbatvameva // garp_3,3.17 // strīrūpamasmādbrahmajaṃ (dvāstavaṃ) cintanīyaṃ svarūpametannānyathā cintanīyam / strīrūpavannaiva vicintanīyaṃ napuṃsakaṃ tbasya janyaṃ hi viddhi
By potencies unthinkable and thinkable he is of two forms: one form female, and the other male. Both forms possess potency, O king of birds, and their non-difference is indeed to be rightly contemplated. (3.16) If he did not possess a female form, O king of birds, how could women have the character of reflections (of him) at all? (3.17) Hence the female form is to be regarded as born of Brahman (as real); this is his own form, and it is not to be conceived otherwise. The neuter is not to be conceived as being like the female form: know it to be something generated from him.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.19
नपुंसकं नवैव स्वरूपभूतमतो हरौ नास्ति विचिन्तनीयम् । स्त्रीबिंबभूते हरिरूपे खगेन्द्र श्रीरूपमस्तीति विचिन्तनीयम्
napuṃsakaṃ navaiva svarūpabhūtamato harau nāsti vicintanīyam / strībiṃbabhūte harirūpe khagendra śrīrūpamastīti vicintanīyam
The neuter is by no means part of his own essential form; therefore it is to be held that it does not exist in Hari. But in Hari's form which is the original of the female, O king of birds, it is to be held that the form of Śrī exists.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.22
गरुड उवाच । स्त्रिया स्त्रियश्च संयोगं व्यर्थमहुर्मनीषिणः । स्त्रीरूपभूते विंबे तु स्त्रीरूपाः सन्ति सर्वदा ॥ गर्प्_३,३।२० ॥ स्थितौ तत्र निमित्तं च ब्रूहि कृष्ण मम प्रभो ॥ गर्प्_३,३।२१ ॥ श्रीकृष्ण उवाच । स्त्रीबिंबभूतस्त्रीरूपे लक्ष्मीर्न स्यात्खगेश्वर । नित्यावियोगिनी देवी कथं स्यात्परमात्मनः
garuḍa uvāca / striyā striyaśca saṃyogaṃ vyarthamahurmanīṣiṇaḥ / strīrūpabhūte viṃbe tu strīrūpāḥ santi sarvadā // garp_3,3.20 // sthitau tatra nimittaṃ ca brūhi kṛṣṇa mama prabho // garp_3,3.21 // śrīkṛṣṇa uvāca / strībiṃbabhūtastrīrūpe lakṣmīrna syātkhageśvara / nityāviyoginī devī kathaṃ syātparamātmanaḥ
Garuḍa said: The wise call the union of a woman with a woman fruitless; yet in the reflection that has the form of woman, female forms exist always. (3.20) Tell me, Kṛṣṇa my lord, the reason for their standing there. (3.21) Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: If Lakṣmī were not present in the female form which is the reflection of woman, O lord of birds, how could the goddess be one who is never separated (from him), from the supreme Self?
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.23
हरेरनन्तरूपाणां स्त्रीरूपाणां खगेश्वर । अनन्तानन्तरूपेण नित्यं शुश्रूषणे रता
hareranantarūpāṇāṃ strīrūpāṇāṃ khageśvara / anantānantarūpeṇa nityaṃ śuśrūṣaṇe ratā
Of Hari's endless forms and of the female forms, O lord of birds, she, in endlessly endless forms, is ever devoted to service.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.24
अतो लक्ष्म्या वियोगस्तु शङ्कनीयः कथञ्चन । नारायणो नाम हरिः स्वतन्त्रः श्रिया विना नास्ति कदापि तार्क्ष्य । हरेर्मुकुन्दस्य पदारविन्दे शुश्रूषमाणा परमादरेण
ato lakṣmyā viyogastu śaṅkanīyaḥ kathañcana / nārāyaṇo nāma hariḥ svatantraḥ śriyā vinā nāsti kadāpi tārkṣya / harermukundasya padāravinde śuśrūṣamāṇā paramādareṇa
Therefore a separation from Lakṣmī is by no means to be suspected. Hari, named Nārāyaṇa, is independent, yet he is never at any time without Śrī, O Tārkṣya — she who serves at the lotus feet of Hari Mukunda with the utmost reverence.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.25
हरिं विना श्रीरपि देशकाले नास्तीति मोक्षेच्छुभिरेव वेद्यम् । यस्यामधाद्वीर्यमनुक्षणं च सा मामिका चेन्द्रजाला त्मिकेति
hariṃ vinā śrīrapi deśakāle nāstīti mokṣecchubhireva vedyam / yasyāmadhādvīryamanukṣaṇaṃ ca sā māmikā cendrajālā tmiketi
And that without Hari Śrī too does not exist in any place or time — this is to be known only by those who desire liberation. "She in whom he deposited his potency at every moment is mine and is of the nature of a conjuror's illusion" —
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.26
वदन्ति ये असुरा मूढरूपा अधंमतः प्रविशन्त्येव सर्वे । माया नाम प्रकृतिस्त्वेमाहुः सुसूक्ष्मरूपा न तु चेन्द्रजालिका
vadanti ye asurā mūḍharūpā adhaṃmataḥ praviśantyeva sarve / māyā nāma prakṛtistvemāhuḥ susūkṣmarūpā na tu cendrajālikā
those demons of deluded form who speak (thus) all enter downward on account of unrighteousness. Prakṛti, named Māyā — her they declare to be of extremely subtle form, and not a conjuror's trick.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.27
तस्याभिमानः श्रीरिति वेदितव्यो वीर्याधानं तत्र तेषां च मेलः । कार्योन्मुखं मेलनं चाहुरार्या इतो रूपं नाहुराय्याश्च विष्णोः
tasyābhimānaḥ śrīriti veditavyo vīryādhānaṃ tatra teṣāṃ ca melaḥ / kāryonmukhaṃ melanaṃ cāhurāryā ito rūpaṃ nāhurāyyāśca viṣṇoḥ
His self-regard is to be known as Śrī; there is the depositing of potency, and the joining of these; and the noble ones call the joining one that is directed toward an effect. Hence the noble ones do not call (this) a form of Viṣṇu.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.28
सानादि नित्या सत्यरूपा च विष्णोर्मिथ्या रूपा सा कथं स्यात्खगेन्द्र । सत्या तनुः प्रकृतेस्तन्निगूढा सत्यत्वमाहुर्व्यवहारार्थरूपम्
sānādi nityā satyarūpā ca viṣṇormithyā rūpā sā kathaṃ syātkhagendra / satyā tanuḥ prakṛtestannigūḍhā satyatvamāhurvyavahārārtharūpam
She is beginningless, eternal, and of real nature, belonging to Viṣṇu: how could she be of false form, O king of birds? The body of Prakṛti is real, hidden in him; (some) say her reality is (only) of the sort that serves practical dealings.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.29
व्यवहाररूपा सत्यता चेत्प्रकृत्यास्तदा कथं स्याद्यदनादिभूता । अनादिनित्या यदि न स्यात्खगेन्द्र सुशूक्ष्मरूपेण न कारणं स्यात्
vyavahārarūpā satyatā cetprakṛtyāstadā kathaṃ syādyadanādibhūtā / anādinityā yadi na syātkhagendra suśūkṣmarūpeṇa na kāraṇaṃ syāt
If Prakṛti's reality were merely of the practical sort, then how could she be one who is beginningless? And if she were not beginningless and eternal, O king of birds, she could not be the cause in her extremely subtle form.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.30
सूक्ष्मेण रूपेण च कारणं स्यात् तर्हि प्रपञ्चस्य च कारणं वद । अविद्याया वशतो विष्णुरेव नानारूपैर्दृश्यते विष्णुरेव
sūkṣmeṇa rūpeṇa ca kāraṇaṃ syāt tarhi prapañcasya ca kāraṇaṃ vada / avidyāyā vaśato viṣṇureva nānārūpairdṛśyate viṣṇureva
If she can be the cause in a subtle form, then tell (me) the cause of the manifold world as well. (You say:) "It is Viṣṇu himself who, under the sway of ignorance, is seen as Viṣṇu himself in manifold forms."
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.31
शास्त्रज्ञानान्नाशमेति ह्यविद्या न संशयो हरिणा चैक्यमेति । एवं ब्रूषे यदि वादत्खगेन्द्र वक्ष्येहं ते तत्र युक्तिं शृणु त्वम्
śāstrajñānānnāśameti hyavidyā na saṃśayo hariṇā caikyameti / evaṃ brūṣe yadi vādatkhagendra vakṣyehaṃ te tatra yuktiṃ śṛṇu tvam
"Ignorance perishes through the knowledge of scripture — no doubt of it — and one attains oneness with Hari." If you should say so, O king of birds, I will state to you the reasoning on that point; listen.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.32
सर्वज्ञरूपस्य हि मे मुरारेः कथं हरेर्घटते ह्यज्ञता च । सूर्ये यथा तमो नास्ति तथा नारायणे हरौ । अज्ञानं नास्ति पक्षीद्र कथं तत्वं ब्रवीष्यहो
sarvajñarūpasya hi me murāreḥ kathaṃ harerghaṭate hyajñatā ca / sūrye yathā tamo nāsti tathā nārāyaṇe harau / ajñānaṃ nāsti pakṣīdra kathaṃ tatvaṃ bravīṣyaho
For me, Murāri, whose nature is omniscience — how can ignorance apply to Hari? As there is no darkness in the sun, so in Nārāyaṇa Hari there is no ignorance, O best of birds; how then do you speak of (that as) the truth?
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.33
अतो नाहं ब्राह्मणस्त्वादिकालादुपाधिसंबन्धवशादज्ञताचेत् । सर्वज्ञोसौ कुत्र पक्षीन्द्र विष्णुरल्पज्ञजीवो ज्ञानशून्यश्च कुत्र
ato nāhaṃ brāhmaṇastvādikālādupādhisaṃbandhavaśādajñatācet / sarvajñosau kutra pakṣīndra viṣṇuralpajñajīvo jñānaśūnyaśca kutra
(If you say:) "Therefore I am not a brāhmaṇa; ignorance comes only through the connection with limiting adjuncts, beginning with time" — (then) where is that all-knowing Viṣṇu, O king of birds, and where the little-knowing soul that is void of knowledge?
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.34
विरुद्धयोश्चानयोः सर्वदैव कथं चैक्यं संवादिष्यन्ति वेदाः । देशे काले सर्वदा द्दुः खहीनो जगत्कर्ता पूर्णशक्तिः सदैव
viruddhayoścānayoḥ sarvadaiva kathaṃ caikyaṃ saṃvādiṣyanti vedāḥ / deśe kāle sarvadā dduḥ khahīno jagatkartā pūrṇaśaktiḥ sadaiva
And how will the Vedas ever declare in agreement the oneness of these two, which are always opposed? (One is) free from sorrow in place and in time always, the maker of the world, ever of full power;
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.35
जीवः सदा स्वल्पकर्तास्ति पूर्णः संसाररूपे दुः खरूपे च नित्यम् । विरुद्धयोश्चानयोरैक्यमाहुरीशस्य मायावशतो मायिनश्च
jīvaḥ sadā svalpakartāsti pūrṇaḥ saṃsārarūpe duḥ kharūpe ca nityam / viruddhayoścānayoraikyamāhurīśasya māyāvaśato māyinaśca
the soul is always a doer in a small measure, (while the other is) full; (the soul is) eternally in the form of saṃsāra and in the form of suffering. Yet they declare the oneness of these two opposites — of the Lord, through his māyā, and of the one subject to māyā.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.36
ये वैष्णवा वैष्णवदासवश्यास्तेषां द्रोहं सर्वदा संचरेद्यः । हरिप्रीतिस्तेन भवेन्न नित्यमानन्दवृद्धिस्तेन भवेन्न मुक्तौ
ye vaiṣṇavā vaiṣṇavadāsavaśyāsteṣāṃ drohaṃ sarvadā saṃcaredyaḥ / hariprītistena bhavenna nityamānandavṛddhistena bhavenna muktau
Those who are Vaiṣṇavas and those subject to the servants of Vaiṣṇavas — whoever constantly practises malice toward them, by that he gains no love of Hari, nor by that any increase of bliss in liberation.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.37
मायी सदा मायिभृत्यस्तथापि भेदज्ञानान्निन्द्यते कार्यते च । तेनापि तेषां दुः खवृद्धिर्भवेच्च ह्यधं तमः पुनरावृत्तिहीनम्
māyī sadā māyibhṛtyastathāpi bhedajñānānnindyate kāryate ca / tenāpi teṣāṃ duḥ khavṛddhirbhavecca hyadhaṃ tamaḥ punarāvṛttihīnam
The one subject to māyā is always the servant of the master of māyā; yet, out of a knowledge that makes (false) distinctions, he is reviled and made (to act). By that too their suffering increases, and (they go to) the lowest darkness from which there is no return.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.38
खगेन्द्रातः प्रकृतिः सूक्ष्मरूपा सा नित्या सा सत्यभूता सदैव । एवं स्वयं कालवाय्वादिकानां परा (रमा)णवः सत्यरूपाश्च सन्ति
khagendrātaḥ prakṛtiḥ sūkṣmarūpā sā nityā sā satyabhūtā sadaiva / evaṃ svayaṃ kālavāyvādikānāṃ parā (ramā)ṇavaḥ satyarūpāśca santi
Therefore, O king of birds, primordial matter is subtle in form; it is eternal, it is ever real. So too the atoms of time, wind and the rest are themselves real in form.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.41
परा (माणू)नां लक्षणं वेदितव्यं ज्ञानेच्छुभिर्नान्यथा वेदितव्यम् । पदार्थानां पार्थिवानां खगेन्द्र विशेषाणां चरमाख्यो विशेषः ॥ गर्प्_३,३।३९ ॥ स एवः स्यात्परमाणुर्द्विजेन्द्र योन्त्योवि (व) शेषोवयवश्च स स्मृतः ॥ गर्प्_३,३।४० ॥ गरुड उवाच । हे कृष्ण हे माधव सात्त्वतां पते पदार्थानां चरमांशः पराणु
parā (māṇū)nāṃ lakṣaṇaṃ veditavyaṃ jñānecchubhirnānyathā veditavyam / padārthānāṃ pārthivānāṃ khagendra viśeṣāṇāṃ caramākhyo viśeṣaḥ // garp_3,3.39 // sa evaḥ syātparamāṇurdvijendra yontyovi (va) śeṣovayavaśca sa smṛtaḥ // garp_3,3.40 // garuḍa uvāca / he kṛṣṇa he mādhava sāttvatāṃ pate padārthānāṃ caramāṃśaḥ parāṇu
The defining mark of atoms is to be known by those desiring knowledge, and not to be known otherwise. Of earthly substances, O king of birds, among their particulars there is a particular called the last (3.39). That indeed is the atom, O best of the twice-born; it is the final particular, and it is called a part (3.40). Garuḍa said: O Kṛṣṇa, O Mādhava, lord of the Sātvatas, (you said) the final portion of substances is the atom —
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.42
इति प्रोक्तं तत्र मे संशयोस्ति योन्त्यो विशेषः स तु नांशयुक्तः । यो ह्यंशयुक्तो न तु स्ॐत्यो विशेष एवं ममाभाति वचस्तु तथ्यम्
iti proktaṃ tatra me saṃśayosti yontyo viśeṣaḥ sa tu nāṃśayuktaḥ / yo hyaṃśayukto na tu soṃtyo viśeṣa evaṃ mamābhāti vacastu tathyam
— thus it was said; therein I have a doubt: that which is the final particular has no parts; but whatever has parts is not the final particular. Thus it appears to me — is the statement true?
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.43
श्रीकृष्ण उवाच । य एव लोके संस्थिता मानुषास्तु विशेषाणां दर्शने शक्तियुक्ताः । तथापि ते यस्य चांशित्वमेव विशेषं वै नैव द्रष्टुं समर्थाः
śrīkṛṣṇa uvāca / ya eva loke saṃsthitā mānuṣāstu viśeṣāṇāṃ darśane śaktiyuktāḥ / tathāpi te yasya cāṃśitvameva viśeṣaṃ vai naiva draṣṭuṃ samarthāḥ
Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: Those very men who are established in the world and are endowed with the power of seeing particulars — even they are quite unable to see the particular of that which has parts.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.44
तमेवाहुश्चरमांशं विशेषं ये चैवमाहुर्मुनयस्तेन चान्ये । ये काणादा गौतमाद्याः खगेन्द्र निरंशकं परमाणुं वदन्ति
tamevāhuścaramāṃśaṃ viśeṣaṃ ye caivamāhurmunayastena cānye / ye kāṇādā gautamādyāḥ khagendra niraṃśakaṃ paramāṇuṃ vadanti
That very thing the sages call the last portion, the particular; and those others who speak thus accordingly — the followers of Kaṇāda, Gautama and the rest, O king of birds — declare the atom to be partless.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.45
अनन्तांशैः संयुतत्वेपि तांश्च निरंशिनो भ्रान्तिदृष्ट्या वदन्ति । तस्मात्परा (रमा) णोः परमाणुत्वमस्ति तदंशानां विनतागर्भजात
anantāṃśaiḥ saṃyutatvepi tāṃśca niraṃśino bhrāntidṛṣṭyā vadanti / tasmātparā (ramā) ṇoḥ paramāṇutvamasti tadaṃśānāṃ vinatāgarbhajāta
Though those (atoms) are joined with endless parts, they call them partless through a mistaken view. Therefore the atomhood of the atom belongs (rather) to its parts, O son born of Vinatā's womb.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.46
परा (रमा) णूनामेकदेशे खगेन्द्र तन्नो संति प्राणिनां राशयश्च । प्रत्येकश संति रूपा हरेश्च ह्यतश्च तत्परमाणोरणीयः
parā (ramā) ṇūnāmekadeśe khagendra tanno saṃti prāṇināṃ rāśayaśca / pratyekaśa saṃti rūpā hareśca hyataśca tatparamāṇoraṇīyaḥ
In a single spot of the atoms, O king of birds, there are not masses of living beings; but the forms of Hari are there, each one severally; and therefore that (form) is smaller than the atom.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.47
यो वा त्वणीयान्परमस्य विष्णोः स एव रूपो महतो महीयान् । तेषामन्योन्यं न विशेषोस्ति कश्चिदचिन्त्यरूपे च विचिन्तनीयः
yo vā tvaṇīyānparamasya viṣṇoḥ sa eva rūpo mahato mahīyān / teṣāmanyonyaṃ na viśeṣosti kaścidacintyarūpe ca vicintanīyaḥ
That which is the smaller-than-small (form) of the supreme Viṣṇu, that very form is greater than the great. Among these there is no difference whatever from one another; and in (his) inconceivable form this is to be pondered.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.48
कालकोटिविहीनत्वं कालानन्त्यं विदुर्बुधाः । देशकोटिविहीनत्वं देशानन्त्यं विदुर्बुधाः
kālakoṭivihīnatvaṃ kālānantyaṃ vidurbudhāḥ / deśakoṭivihīnatvaṃ deśānantyaṃ vidurbudhāḥ
The wise know infinity of time to be the absence of any limit of time; the wise know infinity of place to be the absence of any limit of place.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.49
गुणानामप्रमेयत्वे गुणानन्त्यं विदुर्बुधाः । आनन्त्यं त्रिविधं नित्यं हरेर्नान्यस्य कस्यचित्
guṇānāmaprameyatve guṇānantyaṃ vidurbudhāḥ / ānantyaṃ trividhaṃ nityaṃ harernānyasya kasyacit
The wise know infinity of qualities to be the immeasurability of the qualities. This threefold infinity is eternal, belonging to Hari and to no one else.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.50
तस्य सर्वस्वरूपेषु चानन्त्यं तु त्रिलक्षणम् । तथापि देशतस्तस्य परिच्छेदोपि युज्यते
tasya sarvasvarūpeṣu cānantyaṃ tu trilakṣaṇam / tathāpi deśatastasya paricchedopi yujyate
In all his forms the infinity is of these three marks; yet even so a delimitation of him with respect to place is admissible.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.51
परिच्छेदस्तथा व्याप्तेरेकरूपेपि युज्यते । तस्याचिन्त्याद्भुतैश्वर्यं व्यवहारार्थमेव च
paricchedastathā vyāpterekarūpepi yujyate / tasyācintyādbhutaiśvaryaṃ vyavahārārthameva ca
And so delimitation, as well as pervasion, is admissible even in (his) single form; his inconceivable, wondrous lordship (is such) — and (this is said) merely for practical purposes.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.52
गुणतः कालतश्चैव परिच्छेदो न कुत्रचित् । व्याप्तत्वं देशतो ह्यस्ति सर्वभूतेषु यद्यापि
guṇataḥ kālataścaiva paricchedo na kutracit / vyāptatvaṃ deśato hyasti sarvabhūteṣu yadyāpi
With respect to quality and with respect to time there is no delimitation anywhere; although with respect to place there is pervasion in all beings,
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.53
न च भेदः क्वचित्तस्य ह्यणुमात्रेपि युज्यते । तथापि विद्यतेणुत्वं तस्मादैश्वर्ययोगतः
na ca bhedaḥ kvacittasya hyaṇumātrepi yujyate / tathāpi vidyateṇutvaṃ tasmādaiśvaryayogataḥ
yet no division of him is admissible anywhere, not even by so much as an atom. Even so, atomic smallness exists in him by reason of that lordship.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.54
तस्माद्विद्ध्यवतारार्थं व्याप्तत्वं चापि भण्यते । यत्तस्य व्यापकं रूपं परं नारायणं विदुः
tasmādviddhyavatārārthaṃ vyāptatvaṃ cāpi bhaṇyate / yattasya vyāpakaṃ rūpaṃ paraṃ nārāyaṇaṃ viduḥ
Therefore know that (his) pervasiveness too is spoken of for the sake of (his) descent (as avatāra); that pervading form of his they know as the supreme Nārāyaṇa.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition
GaP 3 3.55
अतश्च परमाणूनां पार्थिवाऽनन्त्यवादिनाम् । भेदः परस्परं ज्ञेयस्तथेशस्य महात्मनः
ataśca paramāṇūnāṃ pārthivā'nantyavādinām / bhedaḥ parasparaṃ jñeyastatheśasya mahātmanaḥ
And hence, for those who assert the infinity of earthly atoms, a mutual difference among the ultimate atoms is to be known, and likewise (a difference) from the Lord, the great Self.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition — the model flagged this verse as uncertain
GaP 3 3.56
जडेशयोर्जडानां च जीवानां च परस्परम् । तथैव जडजीवानां नित्यं भेदो जडेशयोः
jaḍeśayorjaḍānāṃ ca jīvānāṃ ca parasparam / tathaiva jaḍajīvānāṃ nityaṃ bhedo jaḍeśayoḥ
(There is difference) between insentient things and the Lord, and among insentient things, and among souls mutually; likewise between insentient things and souls, and eternally the difference between insentient things and the Lord.
AI translation rendered from the Sanskrit, not a published edition