Some Commentary and Translations on and of MK3.1-2

K3.1

Upāsanā-āśrito dharmo jāte brahmaṇi vartate, prāg-utpatter-ajaṁ sarvaṁ tenāsau kṛpaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ.

The chief difficulty in this verse is the word dharma. Sankara… interprets the word dharma as the “seeker” meaning the individual soul (jiva). But why should the word have this unprecedented meaning? // …The explanation of dharma as soul… is somewhat forced, and it would be better to understand the word dharma in karika 3.1 along the lines of “teaching” or “doctrine”. ~Comans

Here, in this stanza, the word ‘upāsanā’ is used, though the word ‘bhakti’ is the term that is nowadays understood. Upāsanā is the term used in the Vedas. In the entire literature of Vedas there is no term as bhakti ever used. Bhakti is the term and a technique discovered by Vyāsa and elaborated in the mythological literature (purāṇas) of India. ~Chinmayananda

A doctrine (dharma) based upon a conceptual meditation occurs when Brahman is born. [That doctrine is]: “prior to origination, everything is unborn.” Therefore, that doctrine is considered as pitiable. (tr-Comans)

The individual ego taking to itself the path of devotion (upāsanā) imagines itself to be related to the Brahman, who is supposed by it as having manifested Himself. Such an ego is said to be of narrow intellect because it thinks that before creation, all was of the nature of the unborn Reality. (tr-Chinmayananda)

The aspirant, betaking himself to the devotional exercises, subsists in the conditioned Brahman. All this was but the birthless Brahman before creation. Hence such a man is considered pitiable (or narrow in his outlook). (tr-Gambhirananda)

K3.2

ato vakṣyāmy-akārpaṇyam-ajāti samatāṁ gatam, yathā na jāyate kiñcit jāyamānaṁ samantataḥ. (2)

Because of the reasons given in the previous mantra Gauḍapāda is now promising to explain to the sādhaka the supreme Reality which is beyond all limitations. // By the expression sama (same throughout), the Master means that the Reality is homogeneous and all-pervading. The implications are that there is nothing similar to It in It, nor dissimilar to It; nor is there any distinction in density or quality within Itself. // If the Reality be thus eternal and all-pervading how is it that, mortals as we are, we are recognising a world of plurality about and around us? The answer is that these are, in fact, nothing but the Reality Itself. The names and forms of the pluralistic world are but an illusory dream of the mind. ~Chinmayananda

Atah: “therefore”. This ‘therefore’ is quite significant and refers to the situation of the Upasaka of the above verse who finds himself in a pitiable, unworthy plight. He is unhappy of his condition of having taken birth and living in a state of conditioned consciousness rather than in Pure Consciousness. He takes recourse to worship of the Supreme Being in the hope that after his death he will merge into the state of Pure Consciousness again. To have such an idea in mind is itself a delusion, says Gaudapadaji. The Upasaka has reduced himself to a helpless entity for his whole life, imagining that only death will release him from his bound condition. With this background, expressed by the term ‘therefore’, Sri Gaudapadaji begins to elaborate on the correct interpretation of Brahman who is ‘without limitations’. ~Sandeepany / Gurubhaktananda

Therefore, I shall now describe to you (that Brahman) which is free from limitations, unborn, and homogeneous; and from which nothing is in reality born, though it appears to have manifested in endless forms everywhere. (tr-Chinmayananda)

Hence I shall speak of that (Brahman) which is free from limitation, has no birth, and is in a state of homogeneity; and listen how nothing whatsoever is born in any way, though it seems to be born. (tr-Gambhirananda)

Therefore T shall now describe that (Brahman) which is free from limitations, unborn and which is the same throughout; and from this, one understands that it is not (in reality) born though it appears to be manifested everywhere. (tr-Nikhilananda)